For those who haven’t heard of him, Ziggy Switkowski might sound like a cartoon name associated with the kind of childish characterizations of nuclear power that Labor MPs are posting on social media in the wake of Peter Dutton’s policy announcement.
However, Dr. Switkowski is anything but a cheap joke.
Arguably Australia’s most senior business leader with scientific qualifications, Dr Switkowski is the former CEO of Telstra and Optus.
And he also studied business administration at Harvard University, was president of the university and served on all types of government boards.
But it is his scientific qualifications and experience that make his support (albeit qualified) for Peter Dutton’s foray into nuclear power so powerful, and one that marks a welcome intervention from the opposition.
The intervention of nuclear physicist and businessman Ziggy Swikowski in the debate over atomic energy must be taken seriously, writes Peter Van Onselen. Above, Dr Switkowski poses for a photograph when he was president of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization (ANSTO) in 2006.
It may also put into better context the early criticism coming from current sections of the business community, whose investments in other forms of energy production could be affected by a new energy class.
Vested interests should always take their opinions with a grain of salt.
Dr. Switkowski, now retired, earned his doctorate in nuclear physics in the late 1970s, at a time when the rest of the world was beginning to reap the benefits of nuclear energy.
It became a major source of energy in its birthplace, Germany, not to mention other countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, just to name a few.
As Dr Switkowski’s 2006 study into the feasibility of nuclear power in Australia noted (we will return shortly to the origins and conclusions of that 250-page report), 17 of the world’s 24 richest economies have adopted this technology.
But not Australia.
While Dr. Switkowski was completing his PhD in nuclear physics and undertaking six more years of specialized postdoctoral training in the discipline, left-wing faction warriors like Anthony Albanese (then in his late teens and early twenties) were learning their activist craft in the feet of leading left-wing ideologues who oppose nuclear energy.
At the time, silly images like three-eyed fish and deformed pets might not have seemed so absurd.
One of the endless series of memes produced by Labor activists this week in a bid to scare Australians about nuclear power: “Peter Dutton and the seven nuclear reactors.”
Forty years on, they certainly are, which is why Labour’s embrace of such imagery this week was so callow.
Are they also concerned that Australian submariners will develop such deformities when serving on Australian nuclear submarines as part of the AUKUS deal supported by the Labor Party, for example?
Dr. Switkowski is now 75 years old, but he still serves on some boards and also occasionally participates in reviews. His respected reputation is well established.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton gave him an advanced view of the policy he was plotting ahead of this week’s publication, the broad outlines of which were published on Wednesday.
Daily Mail Australia contacted Dr Switkowski to confirm reports today that he supports the Coalition’s bold and risky attempt to go nuclear.
He told us that yes, the reports are accurate and confirm that, when it comes to Australia adopting nuclear power, “you can get the economy going” – and that there is no reason to doubt its ability to deliver dividends for the long-term contributors. term.
The Labor Party has tried to discredit the Coalition’s plans to build the reactors themselves, but Dr Switkowski points out that this is how other governments that adopted the shift to nuclear energy also made the switch.
However, he also noted that once built and established they should no longer be managed by the government. A reflection, perhaps, of the business leader’s faith in the market economy.
While Dr Switkowski began his working life as a nuclear physicist before becoming a leading business figure in this country, he combined his dual expertise in 2006 when he was commissioned by then Prime Minister John Howard to conduct a study and report on the feasibility of nuclear energy. in Australia.
It found that Australia was indeed well placed to include nuclear power within its energy mix. Doing so would be competitive in terms of costs and with emissions reduction benefits. He also noted that, as a country with one of the world’s largest deposits of yellowcake – the key ingredient used in nuclear fuel, or uranium – Australia was also well placed to increase uranium production and exports.
But that was almost 20 years ago, and Dr. Switkowski said at the time that change needed to be adopted sooner rather than later. Australia missed that opportunity and continued to listen to the concerns of nuclear opponents.
The 2006 Switkowski report, as it became known, was criticized at the time by other scientists for failing to adequately address the challenges posed by nuclear waste management.
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 in the same way as nuclear submarine waste will be treated.
While Labor has taken advantage of the days since Dutton’s policy announcement to deliver infantile super-fiscal blows to the policy with references to pets, fish and deformed koalas, with fairy tales and references to The Simpsons, Dr. . Switkowski in the debate should force the Labor Party to take seriously any scare campaign in arguing against nuclear power.
That is, if you want to be taken seriously.
There are certainly unanswered questions and many missing details in what Dutton has revealed so far.
Starting with how much the construction of its seven nuclear reactors could cost. And we know from political history that fear campaigns work and that blocking far-reaching policies by the opposition is risky business.
Dr Switkowski confirmed to Daily Mail Australia that the CSIRO estimate of between $8.6 billion and $10 billion per reactor was “in the ballpark”.
This debate has a long way to go, both politically and as a potential defining shift in the climate wars.
But make no mistake, Dr. Switkowski’s intervention must be taken seriously and cannot simply be dismissed with a juvenile series of social media jokes that aren’t particularly funny to begin with.
