The wrecking ball of Australian politics: The Coalition’s nuclear energy proposal is not in the public interest

The Coalition’s commitment to nuclear energy is based on vested interests and demolishing renewable energy, rather than the public good.

The decision by the Liberal and National parties to unveil their nuclear power station program highlights the paucity of public debate and complexities of energy policy in Australia. At the heart of this move is a blend of rank opportunism and cynicism, aiming to reshape the political narrative surrounding climate action in Australia and diminish the use of renewable energy.

The announcement to construct seven nuclear power stations comes at a time when Australia is entrenched in the ongoing “climate wars”, which the Coalition wages whenever it faces political difficulties, irrespective of whether it’s in government, or in opposition. The decision to propose nuclear energy – specifically at sites of retiring coal plants around Australia – is presented by conservatives and vested interests as a bold vision towards sustainable energy solutions. However, the political motivations behind it are driven by a desire to control the political narrative, rather than a genuine commitment to transformative energy policy, and primarily to destroy the pursuit of renewables.

From a political standpoint, the selection of the proposed nuclear sites is telling. Placing them predominantly in safe Liberal and National seats strategically minimises political risk and backlash in those regions. Obviously, this choice is aiming to avoid the “not in my backyard” syndrome which often accompanies such developments but it’s a high degree of cynicism that utilises these proposals more as electoral and propaganda tools than feasible energy solutions. The lack of serious consideration for the implications of these nuclear sites is further highlighted by the absence of a detailed cost analysis – or any cost analysis – which remains undisclosed, raising questions about the transparency and viability of the Coalition’s proposal.

Economically, the move towards nuclear energy is fraught with challenges. The initial setup and ongoing maintenance costs of nuclear power are substantially higher compared to renewable energy alternatives. Despite claims to the contrary by leader of the opposition, Peter Dutton, the reality of nuclear economics stands in stark contrast. Countries around the world, including notable examples such as Germany and the United Kingdom, are increasingly investing in renewable energies, achieving significant portions of their energy supply from these sources. These examples contradict Dutton’s assertions and highlight a global shift towards more sustainable and cost-effective energy solutions: nuclear energy contributes around 10 per cent of the world’s energy supplies – a number that is decreasing – while renewables currently contribute around 30 per cent, a number that is rising dramatically.

In the public area, the proposal has sparked a wide range of reactions, from skepticism to outright opposition. Critics argue that the plan is not only economically unsound but also poorly timed, considering the global urgency to reduce carbon emissions and the available alternatives that promise quicker and cheaper results. The public’s trust in government-led large-scale infrastructure projects is waning, given past failures such as the National Broadband Network and the continuous infrastructure issues surrounding the Snowy Mountains 2.0 scheme. This history makes the nuclear proposal a hard sell to the Australian electorate, which may view it as another potentially unfulfilled promise.

Coalition’s high-risk strategy lacks clarity and feasibility

The unveiling of the nuclear energy program is a gamble, reflecting a high-risk political strategy with minimal transparency and significant gaps in detail. Why would anyone in the electorate support such a proposal based on a politically motivated four-page media release and announcement, without costings? This lack of clarity, coupled with an absence of firm commitments on the specifics of the nuclear reactors, highlights not only a disregard for informed policy-making but also a broader strategic aim that prioritises political positioning over practical energy solutions.

The proposed nuclear reactors, with unspecified types and sizes, represent a critical void in the plan and this ambiguity extends to the lack of a clear timeline and budget, raising serious questions about the feasibility of the project. The Coalition has not provided substantial information on the technology they plan to employ, whether it be yet-to-be-invented small modular reactors or more traditional nuclear designs, some of which remain purely theoretical and untested at scale. This vagueness suggests a detachment from the technical realities of nuclear power development, which requires precise planning and rigorous safety protocols, especially in a country such as Australia which is geographically prone to natural disasters like floods, bushfires and earthquakes, which pose additional risks to nuclear facilities.

It can also be seen that the underpinnings of the Coalition’s proposal has dual intent: to extend the life of the coal industry under the guise of transitioning to nuclear power, and to leverage this transition as a political tool against the Labor government and support the vested interests of the Coalition. This tactic is primarily an attempt to delay substantive action on climate change, and maintaining the status quo under the pretext of innovative progress.

Aside from these issues, there are pronounced constitutional hurdles and the rights of the states, notably the required approval from state Premiers, who have been unequivocally resistant to endorsing the proposed sites for nuclear development. This uniform opposition from state leaders not only complicates the logistical execution of the plan but also indicates a broader misalignment between federal ambitions and state-level energy policies.

The political landscape within the Liberal Party itself also reflects a broader ideological shift, with the marginalisation of moderates and the ascendancy of figures such as Dutton, who now embody the party’s strategy. This shift towards a more conservative, reactionary stance on energy policy will alienate some electoral segments, further complicating the party’s position with the electorate. The promise of nuclear energy, in this context, is less about a tangible shift towards sustainable energy and more about political posturing, presenting a facade of action to a public that is increasingly aware of and concerned about climate issues.

The Coalition’s nuclear ruse contrasts with the global shift towards renewables

The Coalition’s nuclear energy ambitions against the global trend of decommissioning and moving away from nuclear power starkly illuminates the anachronistic nature of their proposal. Internationally, the trajectory is clear: nations are gradually reducing their reliance on nuclear energy – most, but not all – in favour of renewable sources. This global shift is not just a matter of energy policy but a reflection of broader economic, environmental, and social priorities that increasingly favour sustainability and public safety over the complex challenges associated with nuclear power.

Japan’s experience with Fukushima Daiichi in 2011 serves as a sobering reminder of the potential dangers associated with nuclear energy. The disaster remains an unresolved environmental catastrophe, influencing Japan’s decision to significantly scale back its nuclear operations and this incident highlights the inherent risks of nuclear power, which even with advancements in technology, cannot be entirely mitigated. Fukushima was a turning point for Japan, and it highlighted the critical oversight issues and the devastating consequences of underestimating the risks involved with nuclear energy management.

Similarly, Germany’s decision to decommission all its nuclear power plants and shift towards renewable energy is indicative of a broader, deliberate move towards sustainability. Germany, an industrial leader in Europe, if not the world, has successfully demonstrated that economic vitality does not solely depend on nuclear power. Instead, it has embraced a future-oriented approach by investing in renewable energies, decommissioning its final nuclear power station in 2023 and aiming for a completely renewable energy grid by 2035. This transition is not only about reducing carbon emissions but also about enhancing energy security and public safety, distancing the country from the problematic legacies of nuclear power.

In contrast, the Coalition’s proposal is out of step with these international trends. While nuclear energy does provide certain benefits, such as stable base-load generation and relatively low emissions compared to fossil fuels, the economic and social costs associated with it are considerable. The lack of a clear, detailed plan, the potential for high infrastructure and decommissioning costs, and the substantial risks of environmental disasters make the proposition less appealing, especially when compared to the rapidly falling costs and increasing efficiency of renewable energy technologies.

The ideological inclination of the Coalition towards privatisation of energy assets further complicates the scenario. The Australian public has witnessed the detrimental effects of privatising essential services, where profit motives often supersede public interest, leading to reduced investments in maintenance and safety. The example of Fukushima, where privatisation played a role in the mishandling of the plant’s safety protocols, is a cautionary tale that resonates deeply within Australia. While the Coalition has stated that these nuclear power stations will be government owned, there’s no question that they would sell these assets as soon as it would be possible to do so, further adding to the risk of these assets, if held in private hands, as was the case in Fukushima Daiichi.

This approach is reminiscent of past policies where actions by Liberal governments have been more about garnering votes and catering to corporate interests than addressing public concerns or environmental responsibilities – as evidenced by the Coalition’s history with infrastructure projects, which often prioritise political and vested interests over public interests.

Partisan politics and vested interests undermine sustainable energy goals

The leader of the National Party, David Littleproud’s statement on capping government spending on renewable projects such as offshore wind farms highlights a direct effort to manipulate energy policy in a way that discourages renewables in favour of nuclear solutions. The criticism that offshore wind farms are an “eyesore” – some 20 kilometres off the coast – is an example of how ridiculous aesthetic judgments are used to undermine environmentally beneficial projects, despite their placement far from shore and their minimal visual impact. This stance not only serves to halt progress towards more sustainable energy solutions but also appeals to their “cooker” base that holds misconceptions about the supposed health impacts of wind farms – misconceptions that have been consistently debunked by scientific research.

The ties between key political figures and the uranium mining industry reveal a concerning overlap between personal financial interests and public policy making. Figures such as Gina Rinehart and entities associated with Rupert Murdoch have been noted proponents of uranium mining, an industry that stands to gain significantly from a shift towards nuclear energy. The involvement of these figures in pushing for nuclear energy, coupled with Dutton’s interactions with these influencers at costly events funded by taxpayers – in 2023, Dutton charged taxpayers $23,000 to fly to an event hosted by News Corporation and sponsored by Rinehart’s Hancock Prospecting – suggests a deep entanglement of politics with corporate profit motives, often at the expense of more equitable and sustainable energy policies.

The Coalition has been historically inept in managing national infrastructure projects, such as the NBN and the Snowy Mountains 2.0 scheme, and not even having the wherewithal to construct car parks as part of the infrastructure rorts back in 2019. It’s obvious that the Coalition is not the party of infrastructure unless it can find a beneficial use for one of its benefactors or other vested interest. This inefficacy not only casts doubt on their ability to undertake a project as complex and demanding as nuclear energy infrastructure but also raises concerns about their overall capability to manage public resources responsibly.

In this light, the push for nuclear energy is a strategic move to support specific economic interests within the party’s support base, rather than a genuinely considered strategy aimed at transitioning Australia to a more sustainable energy future. It highlights a pattern of governance where policy decisions are often skewed by partisan and personal interests, which could ultimately undermine public trust and the efficacy of governmental action in addressing critical national issues such as energy security and climate change.

Nuclear policy misstep will give rise to Climate 200 and independent movements in Australian politics

While the Coalition might consider that its nuclear energy announcement will give it an unlikely political fillip – despite its lack of detail and disregard for the broader public interest – it inadvertently serves as a catalyst for mobilising climate action groups and other independent political movements in Australia. This strategic misstep by the Coalition provides a significant opportunity for Climate 200 and the Australian Greens, who are poised to capitalise on the growing disenchantment with traditional party policies, particularly regarding environmental and energy issues.

Climate 200, founded by Simon Holmes à Court, has already demonstrated its ability to influence Australian politics by successfully supporting independent ‘teal’ candidates in previous federal elections, especially in 2022. With the announcement of targeting additional seats in the upcoming election, the group is strategically positioned to further erode the traditional stronghold of major parties. The nuclear proposal, a backward step in the context of global energy trends, enhances the appeal of independents and smaller parties who advocate for more progressive and sustainable energy policies.

The shift away from major parties has been a notable trend in Australian politics since the mid-1980s, with primary vote shares consistently declining, recording 69 per cent in the 2022 federal election. The Coalition’s nuclear energy policy proposal could accelerate this trend, as it aligns poorly with the growing public sentiment favouring renewable energy and more transparent, accountable governance. The nine federal seats targeted by Climate 200, especially those with smaller margins in the 2 to 4 per cent band, become particularly vulnerable in this context, providing fertile ground for independents and small party candidates who can offer credible alternatives to disillusioned voters.

The Australian Greens also stand to benefit, particularly in urban areas such Melbourne and Sydney, where environmental concerns are pronounced and the party already has a substantial supporter base. The Coalition’s gamble on nuclear energy could be perceived as out of touch with the progressive environmental policies more popular among urban voters, potentially boosting support for the Greens.

The Coalition’s commitment to nuclear energy and vested interests rather than public good, will also strengthen the resolve and appeal of independent candidates, who often campaign on platforms of integrity, transparency, and community-focused initiatives – direct counters to what many see as opaque and interest-driven policies from the larger parties.

While the Coalition views its nuclear energy policy as a means to gain power and attract voters looking for firm energy solutions, the move will paradoxically undermine their position. By alienating environmentally conscious voters and those frustrated with traditional political dynamics, the policy may drive these constituents towards independents and smaller parties like the Greens, who promise a more sustainable and community-oriented approach to governance. The true impact of this strategy will become clearer in the upcoming federal election – due before May 2025 – but it does hold the potential to reshape the Australian political arena in favour of those advocating for real change.