Activists are spending big on pro-nuclear ads, but it’s Dutton’s silence that has Labor’s attention
The Age ByPaul Sakkal and Mike Foley, March 21, 2025
The Liberal Party has not used the word “nuclear” in any of its 24 paid ads running on social media, prompting Energy and Climate Minister Chris Bowen to claim the Coalition is now hiding its signature energy policy as protesters crash opposition media events.
An analysis of Meta’s advertising library, which tracks the messages that parties boost, shows the Liberals promoting Labor’s handling of the inflation crisis, energy bill prices and other key talking points, but the party last funded a push of its nuclear power policy back in November.
Anti-nuclear activists from radical climate group Rising Tide snuck into separate events at which Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and shadow treasurer Angus Taylor were speaking on Thursday, underscoring the contentiousness of the proposal to build seven nuclear plants to reach net zero emissions by 2050.
At Taylor’s event in Sydney, activists dressed in business attire effectively took over the press conference, raising questions about the security of MPs ahead of an election campaign.
Coalition MPs, unauthorised to speak to the media, told this masthead they wanted to see an opposition policy on gas and more immediate policies to put downward pressure on power bills, as LNP senator Matt Canavan calls for the opposition to embrace coal as a cheap form of energy. Currently, the Coalition promises a cheaper energy grid by 2050 but does not offer lower energy price rises in the short- or medium-term.
Dutton has posted written messages or videos about nuclear three times this year on Facebook. Energy spokesman Ted O’Brien has posted about nuclear a handful of times since January, but often omits mention of nuclear when writing online about energy and did not mention nuclear in his statement following last week’s power bill price rise.
Dutton is keen to emphasise the Coalition’s “balanced energy mix” that modelling carried out by Frontier Economics estimates would come in cheaper than Labor’s plan, and be underpinned mostly by renewable energy. Labor disputes these figures.
Bowen said “Peter Dutton knows his $600 billion nuclear scheme is a policy dud”, arguing the opposition was “now hiding nuclear as his signature policy” in advertising.
…………………………………………………………………… Resolve’s December survey shows 21 per cent of voters favoured government subsidies for nuclear energy, while 45 per cent of voters backed subsidies for rooftop solar and 34 per cent supported subsidies for home batteries.
Despite the opposition’s paltry marketing of nuclear power, third-party activist groups are spending big on pro-nuclear advertising to influence the federal election. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/activists-are-spending-big-on-pro-nuclear-ads-but-it-s-dutton-s-silence-that-has-labor-s-attention-20250319-p5lkoc.html
“We will not back down:” Court tells Greenpeace to pay billion dollar damages bill to oil and gas company
The case has been mired in controversy from the outset with many jurors holding unfavourable views of the protests and it was reported that more than half the jurors selected to hear the case had ties to the fossil fuel industry.
the US decision is a good indicator about what may be in store for Australia.
Royce Kurmelovs, Mar 20, 2025,
https://reneweconomy.com.au/we-will-not-back-down-court-tells-greenpeace-to-pay-billion-dollar-damages-bill-to-oil-and-gas-company/
A jury in the US has hit Greenpeace with $US660 million ($A1.04 billion) in damages for defamation and other claims for the green group’s part in a campaign led by First Nations people against an oil pipeline in 2016 and 2017.
The Standing Rock protests marked a major turning point in the movement against new oil and gas infrastructure, when the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe led a campaign against the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline.
Right wing organisations and groups mobilised in response to the protests that became a flashpoint in the broader fight over climate change, with sweeping anti-protest laws rolled out across the United States.
The case against Greenpeace is the latest reaction to the protest with Dallas-based oil and gas company, Energy Transfer Partners, alleging it lost $70 billion as a result of the campaign. It pursued Greenpeace in the courts alleging defamation and incitement of criminal behaviour against the project.
The lawsuit relied upon a US-specific statute, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), that was initially written to target the mob, but has since been used to prosecute international football federation FIFA for corrupt conduct and ExxonMobil for its role in attacking the science of climate change.
By seeking hundreds of millions in compensation against an organisation that played a minimal role in the protests, legal experts have described the litigation known as “strategic litigation against public participation”, or a “SLAPP Suit”. These are cases brought by large corporation to shut down public criticism or protest about a company’s activities.
The case has been mired in controversy from the outset with many jurors holding unfavourable views of the protests and it was reported that more than half the jurors selected to hear the case had ties to the fossil fuel industry.
Greenpeace made multiple attempts to move the hearings to another venue over concerns it would not get a fair hearing but were denied.
Following the verdict, Greenpeace International Executive Director Mads Christensen linked the decision to a broader corrosion of the right to protest in the US under the Trump administration.
“We are witnessing a disastrous return to the reckless behaviour that fuelled the climate crisis, deepened environmental racism, and put fossil fuel profits over public health and a liveable planet,” Christensen said.
“The previous Trump administration spent four years dismantling protections for clean air, water, and Indigenous sovereignty, and now along with its allies wants to finish the job by silencing protest.”
“We will not back down. We will not be silenced.”
David Mejia-Canales, a senior human rights lawyer from the Human Rights Law Centre, said the US decision is a good indicator about what may be in store for Australia.
SLAPP suits are not new in Australia, but the US lawfirm representing oil company Santos in the recent Munkara decision that ruled against the Environmental Defenders Office used an approach similar to US-style RICO litigation.
Coalition leader Peter Dutton has already pledged to defund the Environmental Defenders Office after the ruling in Munkara found its lawyers had behaved improperly, but has recently proposed to formally introduce RICO-style laws into Australia if elected.
Mejia-Canales said it was early days on the opposition leader’s proposal that seemed “a bit of a thought bubble” but said that should these laws be introduced, they had “potential to be abused”.
“In a way, the Greenpeace decision in the US is peering a little bit into our own future,” he said. “What we are seeing happening in the US today might be happening here tomorrow.”
“If these RICO type laws get introduced in Australia, they’re not doing it for the greater good or the greater purpose, it’s to stop us critiquing these massive companies whose behaviour leads to a whole lot of criticism and we should be able to do that safely.”
The Human Rights Law Centre is working to draft a bill that would introduce a set of principles for Australian courts to follow when confronted by a SLAPP litigation.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 