After a dismal decade when both sides were fighting over personalities and trying to scare voters about their opponents, finally, on a topic that matters, the Coalition is going to put an important positive proposition to the public: namely that the only way to get to net zero and keep the lights on is to have nuclear power as at least a serious option. And the Labor Party’s hysterical reaction shows Peter Dutton is on to something.
If the Opposition Leader wanted a fight over the nuclear energy policy that he’ll shortly announce, it seems he’s going to get it. And that’s no bad thing for an opposition. You certainly can’t beat an incumbent by just agreeing with it – as the Victorian Liberal Party needs to learn, and fast.
In response to the Coalition flagging the nuclear option, Anthony Albanese said nuclear energy was fine for others but not for us. And then Jim Chalmers really unleashed, claiming: “Peter Dutton’s nuclear fantasy is all about cheap and divisive politics, not cheap and reliable electricity.” Our future, he claimed, “will be increasingly powered by cheaper and cleaner renewable energy”. Nuclear, he said, “costs more, takes longer and squanders our natural advantages”.
Really?
Let’s look at the Treasurer’s claims. First, there’s the lack of logic in saying nuclear power is great tied up beside a dock in a nuclear-powered submarine (which Labor says it supports), but it’s almost evil if it ever comes on land.
Second, if renewables are so cheap, how come the more renewables we get into our system the more expensive our power becomes? The obvious answer is that renewables are cheap only when the wind blows and the sun shines, yet we need electricity 24/7 if we are to remain a First World economy.
And fourth, if nuclear really is a fantasy, how come nuclear provides 70 per cent of France’s power, 20 per cent of America’s and 15 per cent of Britain’s and is already in use in 33 countries, with a further 15 nations also looking at nuclear as the only proven way of delivering 24/7 power that is almost 100 per cent emissions free, in a country with our geography?
Australia is the only G20 country with no plans for nuclear power. Brazil, Mexico, Argentina and South Africa all have operating nuclear power plants. Indonesia has two small trial reactors and even Saudi Arabia is planning a nuclear industry to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels.
It’s true that many new nuclear power plants, such as Britain’s Hinkley C, are way behind schedule and way over budget. But what about the Snowy 2.0 pumped-hydro scheme, originally supposed to cost $2bn and be operational by 2022, that’s now expected to cost $12bn-plus and not become operational until 2029?
The scare campaign Labor will try to re-run, about a nuclear plant in your suburb, won’t work given that the Coalition’s plan is to put the nuclear plants on the sites of closed-down coal-fired power stations – which, incidentally, already have all the transmission infrastructure in place.
Besides, the Lucas Heights medical nuclear reactor in Sydney has been operating for a half-century within a kilometre of housing to no ill-effect. As well, there’s no fundamental reason why small modular reactors, such as those produced in factories and safely operational for decades in nuclear ships, can’t be reproduced on land.
The hyperbole now coming from Labor suggests they’re trying to bluff Dutton out of making a firm nuclear commitment. Just like they knew he was on to something when he took the position he did on the voice and Labor then mounted hysterical attacks on him as a wrecker. Until the votes came in and, unlike the Prime Minister, it turned out Dutton was actually on the side of most Australians.
On nuclear, if there’s no commercial case for it, then why persist with the ban because there’s no need for the prohibition? And if there is a commercial case for nuclear, let’s get the bans removed as soon as possible and see what market options may emerge.
Certainly, the public now thinks nuclear power should be an option. Back in 2015, the public was evenly split on nuclear power, with 40 per cent for and 40 per cent against. By 2022, an Institute of Public Affairs poll found 53 per cent support for the proposition that Australian should build nuclear power plants to supply electricity and reduce carbon emissions, with just 23 per cent against. And the latest Newspoll last month had 55 per cent support for building SMRs and just 31 per cent against.
As Dutton has noted, it was former Labor prime minister Bob Hawke who first championed nuclear power in this country, saying in 2016: “Nuclear power would be a win for the environment and an essential part of attacking global warming.” And he wasn’t alone.
There are plenty of union leaders, especially from those unions that depend on heavy industry that needs reliable 24/7 power, who’ve been supporters of nuclear energy too. And now another reputable business leader, Dick Smith, has chimed in, saying we could get nuclear power within six years and that Labor’s opposition to it is, quote, “emotional and irrational”. “There was simply no way you can run a country 100 per on renewables,” Smith said.
Support for at least having the option of nuclear energy is not going to be enough on its own to win the election for the Coalition but it would be a strong start to the Coalition’s positive policy. And a demonstration that it knows being a small target won’t win against a first-term government.
Of course, there will be a vast whispering campaign against nuclear power, driven by the subsidy-harvesting vested interests now behind the renewables push. It will be a much larger version of the long campaign against a western Sydney airport, largely driven by the established airport operator. That’s why it’s good that Dutton and his colleagues are already out in the open, arguing the case for nuclear now, giving voters plenty of time to assimilate the arguments for and against, as in the voice campaign. This is not something that can be sprung on the public at the last minute, like the Coalition’s super-for-housing policy that was announced only a week before the 2022 election.
There’s a lot more that the Coalition should start arguing in coming months, such as a bigger, better version of super for housing to give first-home buyers access to what’s their own money when they need it most; much lower immigration to take the upward pressure off housing costs and the downward pressure off wages, and to ensure that we really are getting the best migrants we can; a renewed emphasis on policies such as work for the dole to break the something-for-nothing entitlement mindset; an education system with more parental input and a more academically rigorous curriculum; a deregulation push to cut business costs; and a commitment to no new spending (other than on national security and economic infrastructure) that’s not funded by savings elsewhere, that should eventually make room for responsible tax cuts.
This will sharpen the difference between a Liberal-National Coalition that wants to grow the economy to ease the pressure on household budgets and a Labor Party addicted to woke gimmicks and handouts that can be paid for only by robbing Peter to pay Paul.
As I’ve said before, Labor-lite Liberals lose. By getting back squarely to centre-right polices and values, Dutton just may have a chance.
More Coverage
Why sharing home ownership with the government is never risk free
Partnerships in property are never straightforward, especially when the collaboration is with the government, and the impending Help to Buy scheme could catch prospective homebuyers out.
Seven strategies for Dutton to secure election victory
Here are seven strategies Peter Dutton should adapt to win the upcoming federal election, and readers can score his upcoming budget reply and later statements against these benchmarks.
At last, there’s going to be an election fight over serious policy.