Select Committee on Nuclear Energy

The Select Committee on Nuclear Energy was a temporary parliamentary committee of the Australian House of Representatives, established during the 47th Parliament to investigate the feasibility, timing, cost, regulatory implications and broader consequences of nuclear power generation in Australia. Its creation followed the Opposition's announcement that, if elected at the 2025 federal election, it would pursue a nuclear energy program involving proposed reactors at several locations and including small modular reactor technology. The House of Representatives resolved to establish the committee on 10 October 2024. Its remit focused both on nuclear power in general and on the Opposition's particular proposals. The committee held public hearings in multiple Australian states and in regional communities, seeking evidence from energy experts, government bodies, industry participants, environmental organisations and members of the public. It received more than 829 submissions, making the inquiry a significant public forum for debate over Australia's future electricity mix. The committee issued an interim report in February 2025. The majority concluded that nuclear generation could not be deployed quickly enough to contribute materially to Australia's near-term energy-transition or climate targets. It assessed that even a single large reactor could require approximately 15 to 25 years to plan, regulate, finance and construct, potentially placing first generation in the 2040s or later. The report also argued that nuclear power would be substantially more expensive than renewable alternatives and that small modular reactors had not yet demonstrated commercial viability at the scale required for the proposed program. Other obstacles identified included the need to develop a regulatory framework, shortages of specialised workers, uncertain public acceptance, and the water requirements associated with some reactor technologies. The majority report contrasted nuclear construction timelines with the expected growth of solar and wind generation and projected that renewables could account for most of Australia's electricity supply by 2030 and an even larger share by 2035. It warned that committing public resources to nuclear projects could expose taxpayers to major cost and schedule risks and could delay investment in operating renewable and storage capacity. Coalition members issued a dissenting report. They argued that nuclear generation could provide reliable baseload power alongside renewables, reduce long-term electricity costs and help Australia reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Their analysis used a capital-cost assumption of A$10,000 per kilowatt, which the majority and other commentators disputed as too low when compared with recent international nuclear projects. The dissent also called for the removal of Australia's federal legislative restrictions on nuclear power. The committee's findings became part of the wider political contest over energy policy before the 2025 federal election. Environmental and climate organisations welcomed the majority's conclusions, while Coalition representatives maintained that the inquiry had underestimated nuclear power's potential role. The committee did not complete a final report: it lapsed when the House of Representatives was dissolved on 28 March 2025, and no successor committee was appointed in the 48th Parliament. It therefore remains a time-limited parliamentary inquiry rather than a continuing institution or commercial brand.

The Select Committee on Nuclear Energy emerged from Australia's renewed political dispute over whether nuclear generation should form part of the country's future electricity system. The immediate catalyst was the Opposition's announcement that it would seek to build nuclear power plants if successful at the 2025 federal election. Those proposals raised questions about construction sites, reactor technology, costs, delivery schedules, workforce requirements, regulation, waste management, water use and the relationship between nuclear generation and rapidly expanding renewable capacity. On 10 October 2024, the House of Representatives resolved to establish a select committee during the 47th Parliament. Unlike a permanent department or statutory regulator, a select committee is a temporary parliamentary body created for a defined inquiry. This committee was tasked with examining nuclear power generation in Australia and, in particular, the Opposition's proposed deployment of small modular reactors. Its work was intended to provide a public evidentiary record and to scrutinise the assumptions behind the proposed nuclear program. The committee conducted public hearings in several Australian states and included regional locations in its hearing program. It invited submissions from interested organisations, experts and members of the public and received more than 829 responses. The process brought together competing perspectives on the electricity system. Supporters of nuclear energy emphasised firm generation, energy security, industrial development and the possibility of reducing dependence on fossil fuels. Critics focused on construction times, capital costs, regulatory barriers, unresolved commercial questions surrounding small modular reactors and the opportunity cost of diverting investment away from renewables, storage and transmission. In February 2025, the committee released an interim report. The majority concluded that nuclear power could not be delivered quickly enough to meet Australia's immediate energy-transition or climate commitments. It estimated that constructing even one reactor could take 15 to 25 years, potentially delaying useful generation until the 2040s or later. The report also presented nuclear generation as the most expensive of the principal electricity options under consideration, citing recent international projects with costs in the range of A$27 billion to A$45 billion per reactor. It cautioned that small modular reactors remained commercially immature and had not established a cost or deployment record capable of supporting the Opposition's proposed timetable. The majority identified several non-financial barriers. Australia would need to establish or expand nuclear regulation, build a specialised workforce, develop institutional expertise, obtain community acceptance and address water-supply implications. The report argued that these requirements would make nuclear deployment particularly difficult while Australia was simultaneously attempting to replace ageing coal generation and meet emissions targets. It projected that renewables could supply approximately 84 percent of the national grid by 2030 and 96 percent by 2035, reinforcing its view that renewable generation could be expanded more rapidly. Coalition members produced a coordinated dissent. They argued that the majority had undervalued nuclear energy's ability to provide dependable baseload power and had failed to recognise its potential to complement variable renewable generation. Their submission maintained that nuclear power could reduce energy costs and was necessary, or at least highly valuable, for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. It used a capital-cost assumption of A$10,000 per kilowatt, while the majority and outside commentators disputed that figure as materially below the costs observed in comparable international projects. The dissent also called for the federal legislative prohibition on nuclear power generation to be lifted. The interim report received sharply divided responses. Environmental groups and climate organisations supported the majority's conclusions, particularly its warnings about cost, delivery risk and the possibility that nuclear investment could delay renewable deployment. Coalition figures continued to support nuclear power and criticised the report's interpretation of reliability, cost and emissions. The inquiry consequently became part of the broader policy debate preceding the 2025 election rather than a settled consensus on Australia's energy mix. The committee's institutional life ended with the dissolution of the House of Representatives on 28 March 2025. Because it lapsed before completing a final report, its interim findings were its principal formal output. No successor committee was appointed in the 48th Parliament. The body is therefore best understood as a short-lived parliamentary inquiry created to test the feasibility and implications of a proposed nuclear policy, not as a continuing organisation, regulator or commercial brand.

• 2025

  Interim report released

  [1]Select Committee on Nuclear Energyen.wikipedia.org

  The majority report assessed nuclear power as too slow and expensive to support Australia's near-term transition and climate objectives.

• 2025

  Committee lapses

  [1]Select Committee on Nuclear Energyen.wikipedia.org

  The committee lapsed following the dissolution of the House of Representatives on 28 March and did not complete a final report.

• 2024

  House resolves to establish the committee

  [1]Select Committee on Nuclear Energyen.wikipedia.org

  On 10 October, the House of Representatives created the select committee to investigate nuclear power generation and the Opposition's proposed reactor program.

• 2024

  Public inquiry begins

  [1]Select Committee on Nuclear Energyen.wikipedia.org

  The committee held hearings in multiple states and regional communities and received more than 829 submissions.

A temporary evidence-gathering and scrutiny mechanism of the Australian House of Representatives, positioned at the centre of a national policy debate over nuclear energy, renewable deployment, electricity reliability, climate targets and public expenditure.

• 2025

  Majority recommends against relying on nuclear power for near-term transition targetsStrategy

  Background

  The committee assessed proposed nuclear generation against Australia's energy-transition timetable, climate commitments, expected renewable growth and the practical requirements of establishing a nuclear industry.

  Action taken

  The majority interim report concluded that nuclear plants would take too long to deliver, would carry substantial cost and execution risks, and that small modular reactors were not commercially ready for the proposed program.

  Aftermath

  Environmental and climate organisations welcomed the findings, while Coalition members issued a dissent arguing that nuclear generation was necessary for reliable supply and net-zero ambitions. The committee later lapsed without a final report.

  Estimated capital cost of recent international nuclear projects. A$27 billion to A$45 billion per reactor (Cited in the February 2025 interim report)

  Source

• 2025

  Coalition members dissent on nuclear economics and reliabilityOther

  Background

  Coalition members disagreed with the majority's conclusions about nuclear construction costs, delivery speed and the role of firm generation in a renewable-heavy electricity system.

  Action taken

  They issued a coordinated dissenting report, argued for a capital-cost assumption of A$10,000 per kilowatt, supported nuclear as a complement to renewables and called for removal of the federal nuclear prohibition.

  Aftermath

  The disagreement reinforced the committee's role as a focal point for the national political debate over nuclear power before the 2025 election.

  Source

1. 1Select Committee on Nuclear Energyen.wikipedia.org