[Theme Music Starts]

SCOTT:

From Schwartz Media, I’m Scott Mitchell. This is 7am.

Nuclear power has been politically toxic in this country for decades. That’s why it’s been 55 years since a leader won an election promising to build nuclear reactors, but Peter Dutton is betting it all that he can do it.

And as strange as it sounds, he’s convincing people. A little over ten years ago, 62 per cent of Australians opposed nuclear power – today, polls are showing the majority support it. So how has a policy so beset with challenges and criticism, won people over?

Today, columnist for The Saturday Paper Paul Bongiorno, on why a policy that may never work, can still be a political weapon.

It’s Friday, June 21.

[Theme Music Ends]

SCOTT:

Paul, it's been long promised, long anticipated. But this week, Peter Dutton finally went from a fairly vague nuclear promise to announcing a nuclear policy he'll take to the next election. First, just how big a moment is this for the opposition?

PAUL:

Well, Scott, this is Peter Dutton's crazy, brave moment. It's born of a desperation as a first term opposition leader trying to achieve the rare feat of knocking off a first term prime minister and government.

Audio excerpt — Peter Dutton:

“Okay, everyone, now, thank you very much for being here today. I'm very pleased to be joined by my colleagues, because this is a major announcement to the future of our country's incredibly important that we need to have a plan for the economy. We need to have a plan for jobs, and we need to have a plan for cheaper electricity.”

PAUL:

The news conference in Sydney was a firm statement that the leadership of the Coalition parties was all onside, with his attempt to paint seven nuclear reactors sometime in the next 30 years, as the answer to all struggling Australians’ problems.

Audio excerpt — David Littleproud:

“Well thanks Dutto. It's a proud day to be the Nationals leader. This has been a long held view of the National Party, but it's proud of me to stand here with my Coalition friends, led by Peter Dutton, who's had the courage of the conviction to come forward, to stand forward and show a different way for Australia.”

PAUL:

He was joined by the leader of the Nationals, David Littleproud. His Deputy Leader Sussan Ley, Shadow Minister for Climate change and Energy Ted O'Brien – he's the architect of the yet to be fully and credibly released plan. And finally, Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor.

Audio excerpt — Peter Dutton:

“Today, I want the very clear focus to be on the fact that the sites we're proposing are end of use coal fired power station sites. So when you hear Labor go out and say, is it going to be in this park? Will it be on this beach? All of that childish behaviour that we'll expect from the Prime Minister.”

PAUL:

What we got was the sites for the proposed nuclear reactors as flagged or on current coal fired power stations. Two in Queensland, two in New South Wales, one in South Australia, one in Victoria and one in Western Australia. And we had the claim the first of them would be online by 2035 to 2037.

Audio excerpt — Journalist:

“I mean, this will be an eye-watering price tag whatever it is. Where does that money come from, or where it's taken from, and why not get climate investment?”

Audio excerpt — Peter Dutton:

“Well, it again, it comes from the same place that the Snowy Hydro funds come from, or the subsidies around solar and wind now: it comes from the Australian taxpayer. The Australian government doesn't have any money without the Australian taxpayer. So, that's a decision for the government of the day as to whether it's a wise investment.”

PAUL:

But, Scott, the most stunning part of the announcement was the Liberals abandoning their holy writ of a free market and private enterprise, knowing best and best able to deliver. The taxpayers of Australia will be asked to stump up the as yet unspecified billions of dollars. And in what would make any socialist proud, the Australian government will own and operate these power stations.

Audio excerpt — Peter Dutton:

“The assets will be owned by the Commonwealth, a very important point. And we'll work with experts to deliver these programs. We’ll work with the state premiers – some debate about that, I see…”

PAUL:

Of course, don't mention the waste or the safety issues or how the local communities will be involved. Dutton says we'll get all those answers in due course. But when that is, and whether it'll be before the election or after it, is far from clear.

Audio excerpt — Peter Dutton:

“If we want to set our country up for the future, if we're going to bring those electricity prices down, if we want to make a stable economy, and if we want to grow that economy, and if we want to grow jobs for generations to come, our country must seize this opportunity now.”

SCOTT:

Right Paul, a few hurdles to overcome. Do we have a sense yet how serious those kinds of practical challenges are with this policy?

PAUL:

Well, state Labor premiers immediately came out against the plan. New South Wales’ Chris Minns and Victoria's Jacinta Allan reminded us that even if Dutton removed federal legislation that bans nuclear power stations, states like these have their own bans and they won't be lifting them.

Audio excerpt — Chris Minns:

“We're not going to remove the nuclear prohibition on energy production in New South Wales, so I don't know how they're going to get around it.”

PAUL:

Queensland Premier Steven Miles, South Australia's Peter Malinauskas and Western Australia's Roger Cook made that rejection universal.

Audio excerpt — Peter Malinauskas:

“The only known fact is that it's the most expensive form of power out there.”

PAUL:

And Scott, at this stage, even the state Liberal and National party oppositions are very cool on the idea, though they are choosing their words carefully. Victorian Opposition Leader John Pesutto says he has no plans to introduce nuclear and Queensland Opposition Leader David Crisafulli, who looks like becoming the next premier of that state. Well, he says he's been clear that nuclear was not part of his plan. Then there's the energy companies who own most of these sites. We got a chorus of doubt or rejection from them. AGL, one of the biggest companies, simply reissued comments their CEO made back in March. He said, and quote, “there's no viable schedule for the regulation or development of nuclear energy in Australia and the cost, build time and public opinion are all prohibitive”. All of this, Scott, goes to the biggest issue with the plan – the timeline.

Audio excerpt — Chris Bowen:

“Now, what do we know from today's announcement? The only details they've released is an admission that even on their own timetable, which is hugely ambitious, they couldn't get a nuclear reactor up in Australia until 2035 or 2037.”

PAUL:

This was the central point made by Labor's Climate Change and Energy Spokesman Chris Bowen. He called a press conference hours later to lay out the case against what he called ‘a risky nuclear scam’, saying that 2035 is too far away and even if the opposition somehow could deliver, it would defy every example on record.

Audio excerpt — Chris Bowen:

“We now have a clear choice. The Australian people now have a very clear choice. Stick with the plan or go with this uncosted, unmodelled fantasy that Mr Dutton is proposing today.”

PAUL:

Bowen said it would be the fastest nuclear rollout in the world in a country that doesn't have a nuclear industry.

Audio excerpt — Chris Bowen:

“Mr Dutton is isolated here. He's also from his state and territory parties. He's isolated from the business community. He's isolated from the science community. He's isolated from sensible policy. Mr Dutton's out on his own.”

PAUL:

And the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator agree with him. Their recent report found the earliest Australia could get nuclear online was 2040, and that it would be more expensive than renewables.

But Dutton is undeterred. He's hinted he'll use the constitutional powers of the federal government to override the states and their bans on nuclear. And he'll use forced acquisition of the ageing sites from the private or state government owners.

But Scott, the practicalities are only one aspect of this, because this isn't just a policy proposal. It's also a political weapon.

SCOTT:

Right, Paul, let's talk about that. Because plenty of opposition leaders, including Peter Dutton himself, at times have made political wins with policies that have had some practical challenges. But is nuclear power really going to win people over?

PAUL:

Well, there's no doubt Dutton has managed to get Australians to be open to the idea of nuclear energy. The opinion polls reflect that.

Audio excerpt — Peter Dutton:

“I want to help families get their power bills down. I want electricity costs to be cheaper in our country. I want them to be, I want businesses in particular but families as well to have consistent or reliable power and I want greener power. But at the moment, the government is slowly choking the Australian economy…”

PAUL:

But being open to the idea that sometime in the future, nuclear reactors will be built in these specified communities is not the same as delivering them. And when push comes to shove, the risks may well deter acceptance. But the biggest weakness is that this plan has a 2050 deadline. Dutton is tying it to the cost of energy now, but nothing he announced yesterday will lower energy prices in the next three years. So the acid test will be on Anthony Albanese's ability to prosecute this case and convince voters.

Dutton is determined not to die wondering. And he seized a moment that he's judged, and his judgement is supported by the latest batch of opinion polls that he has as much personal credibility as his opponent, the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. So he doesn't want to waste any time and will spend the next 12 months ahead of the election intent on setting the political agenda.

SCOTT:

After the break – the Canberra visit that gave us a window into our energy future.

[Advertisement]

SCOTT:

Paul, we're talking about this nuclear plan and I want to talk about what this means for the future here, Paul. If we went with nuclear power and abandoned a lot of this renewable shift we're trying to make happen right now, what would that mean?

PAUL:

Well, from the Liberals’ point of view, Sussan Ley attempted to frame the plan as a policy for the future, providing jobs, manufacturing for the next generation.

Audio excerpt — Sussan Ley:

“Thank you Peter, and thank you for your clear eyed and consistent leadership on an issue that is so vital for the future of our country, for our children and our grandchildren. How can this prime minister promise a future made in Australia when he can't keep the lights on today? In order to have that future made in Australia, we have to have nuclear energy in the mix.”

PAUL:

But we're seeing a huge global pivot to renewables, and Australia is uniquely placed, to take advantage. We got a stark preview of that this week, with Chinese Premier Li Qiang visiting Canberra. He's the highest ranking representative of our biggest trading partner to come in seven years. And while there was a lot of focus on pandas and on protests outside Parliament House, his main mission here was to strengthen trade ties. And that's because China was desperate to have access to Australia's critical minerals. It's less about coal and iron ore, although they still massively feature, but more about minerals that fuel the energy transition, like lithium. But, you know, China produces 90 per cent of the world's solar panels and is becoming the leader in batteries. And the International Energy Agency says China itself, in the next five years will account for 56 per cent of the world's additional renewable energy. Australia, according to the Smart Energy Council, has a huge opportunity not just to ship the ore to China or America, but that we can become a world leader in processing, refining and manufacturing what the world economy is going to be increasingly in desperate need of. And it's important to note that while China does have nuclear power, it plans to rely less on it. Right now, nuclear accounts for only 4.6 per cent of China's energy, while renewables account for 30 per cent of total generation and they're growing. The China hawks in the coalition, like Senator James Paterson or Barnaby Joyce, keep the emphasis on our values differences. Well, China says it wants to shelve these differences and work on those interests we have in common for our mutual prosperity.

SCOTT:

And so, finally, Paul, we have a major policy announcement from the opposition, and we have the prime minister falling behind the opposition leader for the first time in a major poll. And there have been a lot of moments in this term of government that we're going to look back on as defining it, whether it's Peter Dutton's decision to oppose the Voice, Albanese's to make the tax cuts a bit more equal. Is this week going to be one of those moments?

PAUL:

Well, Scott, it could well be, but there's much more to play out. An aggregate of all the published polls still has the government just in front and either maintaining its slim majority or going into minority. But a week is a long time in politics, and Labor is counting on the tax cuts arriving in a matter of days and the energy bill relief, to make voters less grumpy with it. So we'll see. You know, there's that old proverb often attributed to China, that ‘may you live in interesting times’. It certainly seems to be playing out at the moment.

SCOTT:

Paul, thanks so much for your time. It's always a pleasure.

PAUL:

Thank you, Scott. Bye.

[Advertisement]

[Theme Music Starts]

SCOTT:

Also in the news today,

Undercover shoppers have found near identical prices being charged for groceries at both Coles and Woolworths, raising competition concerns.

The price comparison, run by consumer group Choice, found that there was less than a one dollar price difference in a basket containing 14 common items bought at both supermarkets. While a basket of comparable items bought at Aldi, cost about 25 per cent less.

And in an interview on Israeli TV, Israel’s chief army spokesman said that Hamas cannot be eliminated and that claims that the militant group was quote, “throwing sand in the eyes of the public”.

The military quickly issued a clarification saying the comments were referring to Hamas as an ideology, but the initial statements appear to suggest a rift between the military and political leadership in Israel.

7am is a daily show from Schwartz Media and The Saturday Paper.

It’s produced by Kara Jensen-Mackinnon, Cheyne Anderson and Zoltan Fesco.

Our senior producer is Chris Dengate. Our technical producer is Atticus Bastow.

Our host is Ashlynne McGhee. Sarah McVeigh is our head of audio. Erik Jensen is our editor-in-chief.

Mixing by Travis Evans and Atticus Bastow.

Our theme music is by Ned Beckley and Josh Hogan of Envelope Audio.

And I’m Scott Mitchell, the editor of 7am. Thank you so much for listening, we’ll see you next week.

[Theme Music Ends]