PETER VAN ONSELEN: Why everyone needs to sit up and pay attention to Ziggy Switkowski on nuclear energy – as Anthony Albanese tries to scare Aussies with silly memes

For those who have never heard of him, Ziggy Switkowski may sound like a cartoon name associated with the kind of childish characterizations of nuclear power being posted by Labor MPs on social media in the wake of Peter Dutton’s policy announcement.

Dr. However, Switkowski is anything but a cheap joke.

Dr. Switkowski is arguably Australia’s most senior business leader, with scientific credentials, and is a former CEO of both Telstra and Optus.

And he also studied business management at Harvard University, served as university chancellor and served on various government boards.

But it is his scientific credentials and experience that make his (albeit qualified) support for Peter Dutton’s venture into nuclear energy so powerful, and one can assume that this is a welcome intervention for the opposition.

It could also put into better context the initial criticism from current parts of the business community – whose investments in other forms of energy production are likely to be affected by a new energy class.

Vested interests should always take their opinions with a grain of salt.

The now retired Dr. Switkowski received his PhD in nuclear physics in the late 1970s, at a time when the rest of the world was beginning to embrace the benefits of nuclear energy.

It became a major energy source in its birthplace Germany, not to mention other countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom and France, to name a few.

As Dr Switkowski’s 2006 study on the viability of nuclear energy in Australia noted – we’ll return to the origins and findings of that 250-page report shortly – 17 out of 24 of the world’s richest economies embraced the technology.

But not Australia.

While Dr. Switkowski was completing his PhD in nuclear physics, and undergoing another six years of post-doctoral specialist training in the field, left-wing faction fighters such as Anthony Albanese (then in his late teens and early twenties) learned their activist trade at the feet of senior left-wing ideologues who opposed be nuclear energy.

Back then, silly images like three-eyed fish and deformed pets might not have seemed so absurd.

Forty years on, it certainly is, which is why Labor’s embrace of such images has been so tepid this week.

Are they also concerned about Australian submarines developing such deformities when serving on Australian nuclear submarines, for example as part of the AUKUS deal that Labor supports?

Dr. Switkowski is now 75 years old, but continues to occasionally sit on the board and also occasionally participates in reviews. Its respected reputation is well established.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton gave him a preview of the policies he had in mind in the run-up to this week’s release, the broad outlines of which were released on Wednesday.

Daily Mail Australia contacted Dr Switkowski to confirm today’s reports that he supports the Coalition’s bold and risky bid to go nuclear.

He told us the reports are accurate and confirm that when it comes to embracing nuclear energy in Australia, ‘the economy can be put to work’. That there is no reason to doubt their ability to pay a dividend to taxpayers in the long term.

Labor has tried to discredit the Coalition’s plans to build the reactors themselves, but Dr Switkowski points out that other governments that have embraced the move to nuclear power have also made the move.

However, he also noted that once built and established, they should not be managed by the government. Perhaps a reflection of the business leader’s confidence in the market economy.

While Dr. Switkowski began working as a nuclear physicist before becoming a leading business figure in this country, he combined his dual expertise in 2006 when then-Prime Minister John Howard commissioned him to conduct a study and report on the viability of nuclear energy. in Australia.

It turned out that Australia is indeed well placed to include nuclear energy in the Australian energy mix. This would be cost competitive with the benefits of emission reduction. It also noted that Australia, as a country with one of the world’s largest deposits of yellowcake – the main ingredient used in nuclear fuel or uranium – is also a good place to ramp up uranium production and exports.

But that was almost two decades ago, and Dr. Switkowski said at the time that making the change should be embraced sooner rather than later. Australia lost that opportunity and continued to listen to the concerns of nuclear opponents.

The 2006 Switkowski Report, as it became known, was criticized by some other scientists at the time for failing to adequately address the challenges of dealing with nuclear waste.

But now that Australia has a bipartisan commitment to nuclear submarines, dealing with nuclear waste is also a bipartisan reality, whether nuclear power becomes a reality or not.

The coalition says reactor waste will be treated the same as waste from nuclear submarines.

While Labor has used the days since Dutton’s policy announcement to deliver childish super-fiscal blows to policy with references to deformed pets, fish and koalas, with fairy tales and Simpsons references, Dr. Switkowski in the debate should force Labor to become serious with any scare campaign when advocating against nuclear energy.

At least, if it wants to be taken seriously.

There are certainly unanswered questions and many missing details in what Dutton has revealed so far.

Starting with how much its seven nuclear reactors would cost to build. And we know from political history that scare campaigns work and that blocking the opposition’s big-target policies is a risky business.

Dr. Switkowski confirmed to Daily Mail Australia that the CSIRO’s estimate of between $8.6 billion and $10 billion per reactor was “in the ballpark”.

This debate still has a long way to go, both politically and as a defining potential shift in the climate wars.

But make no mistake: Dr. Switkowski’s intervention should be taken seriously and cannot simply be dismissed with a childish series of social media jokes that are not particularly funny at first glance.