Antinuclear

Nuclear power may have cost the Coalition 11 seats in the federal election

even if a Coalition government managed to repeal the legal ban, there is no realistic prospect of privately-funded nuclear power plants. That’s why the Dutton Coalition proposed taxpayer-funded nuclear plants.

“Support for nuclear reactors seems to be melting down in the regions who’ve been told they are hosting them. These communities weren’t asked if they want nuclear reactors in their backyard, and have been told it’s happening whether they like it or not.

Jim Green, May 25, 2025, https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-power-may-have-cost-the-coalition-11-seats-in-the-federal-election/?fbclid=IwY2xjawKfkqFleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFhajFIaEp5YUgwblJ2b1dnAR4mAGGM8t3q6FAYGZAUFRhTYWueycBG8grfFPPDMidaGksemNdmgxN8O11QUA_aem_osPG4UnoECyz8P69zj0Wug

On the day after the Coalition’s disastrous performance at the May 5 federal election, Nationals leader David Littleproud said nuclear power was not responsible for the Coalition’s historic loss.

Ted O’Brien, head salesman for the nuclear policy and now deputy leader of the Liberal Party, refuses to concede that the nuclear policy cost the Coalition votes, saying it would be “premature” to judge.

In fact, a vast amount of evidence clearly shows that the nuclear policy cost the Coalition many votes. It may have cost the Coalition around 11 seats, as discussed below.

If not for the swing away from the Coalition for other reasons, the nuclear policy could have cost the Coalition many more seats. In the seat of Dickson, for example, nuclear power was clearly unpopular but Peter Dutton would likely have lost his seat regardless of the nuclear policy.

Voter rejection of nuclear power was evident to the South Australian Liberal Party, which abandoned its pro-nuclear power policy and abolished the position of ‘Shadow Minister for Nuclear Readiness’ two days after the federal election. State leader Vincent Tarzia acknowledged that nuclear power has been “comprehensively rejected” by the electorate.

There is some understanding within the Coalition that the nuclear policy cost them votes and seats. But there’s no willingness to vent this issue publicly since the Coalition seems likely to agree to retain its pro-nuclear power policy, albeit in a watered-down form which involves promising to repeal legislation banning nuclear power but without the commitment to build seven nuclear power plants at taxpayers’ expense.

While there’s no willingness to publicly discuss the vote-killing nuclear elephant in the room, an unnamed Coalition MP told the ABC that the nuclear policy “definitely cost us votes, and anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves.”

The MP flagged a compromise: the Nationals could be persuaded to stick with a net zero policy and in return the Liberals would accept the (watered-down) nuclear power policy. But that is the same compromise that got the Coalition into this mess in the first place.

There are any number of problems with the proposed compromise. Coalition candidates will go to the next election with a nuclear target on their political backs, just as they did at this election.

There is no chance of nuclear power making the slightest contribution to emissions reductions before 2050 despite the conservative mantra that Australia can’t reach net zero by 2050 without nuclear power.

The ABC reported: “Two Liberals from different wings of the party told the ABC there was no chance the party could agree to keep the policy they say lost them votes, but that lifting the moratorium would allow the private sector to invest in nuclear if it became viable.”

But even if a Coalition government managed to repeal the legal ban, there is no realistic prospect of privately-funded nuclear power plants. That’s why the Dutton Coalition proposed taxpayer-funded nuclear plants.

Malcolm Turnbull told the ABC that taxpayer-funded nuclear power was a “truly crazy idea” and lifting the legal ban is acceptable given there is “no prospect of anyone in the private sector ever building a nuclear power plant here.”

The evidence that the nuclear power policy cost the Coalition votes and seats is summarised below and a detailed analysis is posted online.

National attitudes

A RedBridge poll of around 2,000 Australian voters in May 2024 found that support for nuclear power exceeds opposition among Coalition voters, those aged over 65, those who earn more than $3,000 per week, those under no financial stress, and those who own their own home.

Support is outweighed by opposition in every other category: non-Coalition voters, those aged under 65, those earning less than $3,000 per week, those under financial stress, and those who don’t own a home.

The Murdoch / News Corp. press released polling results on April 19 showing that the nuclear policy was “driving a collapse in the Coalition’s primary vote in marginal seats across Australia.”

The RedBridge-Accent poll in 20 marginal seats found that 56 percent of respondents agreed with Labor’s claim that the Coalition’s nuclear power plan will cost $600 billion and require spending cuts to pay for it, while only 13 percent disagreed. RedBridge director Tony Barry said the issue was “smashing the Liberal brand” and “atomising the primary vote.”

The Adelaide Advertiser and other News Corp. publications reported on May 1, four days before the election, that 41 per cent of 1011 respondents to a Redbridge-Accent national poll ranked concerns about the Coalition’s nuclear power plan among their top five reasons for deciding to oppose a particular party. Only one issue topped nuclear power as a vote-changing turn-off.

Liberals Against Nuclear polling

Polling commissioned by the Liberals Against Nuclear group provides further evidence of the political poison of the Coalition’s nuclear policy. The group summarised some of its commissioned research a week before the election:

Liberals Against Nuclear: polling

Polling commissioned by the Liberals Against Nuclear group provides further evidence of the political poison of the Coalition’s nuclear policy. The group summarised some of its commissioned research a week before the election:

“A new uComms poll shows leading Liberal frontbencher Michael Sukkar could lose his seat at the coming election if the Party persists with its unpopular nuclear plan.

“The poll, commissioned by Liberals Against Nuclear, shows Labor and the Coalition tied at 50-50 in two-party preferred terms in Deakin. However, the same polling reveals that if the Liberals dumped their nuclear policy, they would surge to a commanding 53-47 lead.

“The polling follows a broader survey across 12 marginal seats that showed the Liberal Party would gain 2.8 percentage points in primary vote if it abandoned the nuclear energy policy.

“An earlier poll in the seat of Brisbane found the nuclear policy was a significant drag on Liberal candidate Trevor Evans’ support.”

Thus the nuclear policy may have decided the result in Deakin and cost Michael Sukkar his seat. Assuming a national swing comparable to that found by Liberals Against Nuclear polling in 12 marginal seats – a 2.8 per cent drop in the Coalition’s primary vote — the Coalition may have lost around 11 contests because of the nuclear power policy:

* Aston (Vic) — ALP retain — the Coalition’s two-party preferred vote was 46.6 per cent as of 21 May 2025

* Banks (NSW) — ALP gain — 47.6 per cent Coalition two-party preferred

* Bendigo — ALP retain — 48.5 per cent

* Bullwinkel (WA) — ALP retain — 49.5 per cent 

* Deakin (Vic) — ALP gain — 47.2 per cent

* Forde (Qld) — ALP gain — 48.2 per cent

* Hughes (NSW) — ALP gain — 47.1 per cent

* Menzies (Vic) — ALP gain — 48.9 per cent

* Moore (WA) — ALP gain — 47.0 per cent

* Petrie (Qld) — ALP gain — 48.9 per cent

* Solomon (NT) — ALP retain — 48.7 per cent 

A Resolve poll for Nine newspapers in April 2025 found that 31 per cent of respondents cited nuclear power as one of their biggest concerns about voting for the Coalition, up 5 per cent from the previous poll.

In October 2024, nuclear power regained its status as Australian’s least popular energy source, overtaking coal. Two months later, nuclear was still Australia’s least popular energy source.

The 2024 National Climate Action Survey of more than 4,000 respondents found that 59 per cent wanted to keep the legal ban on nuclear power in 2024, up from 51 per cent in 2023. Sixty-six per cent of women and 51 per cent of men supported the ban.

Polling released by the pro-nuclear group WePlanet Australia found that support for nuclear power dropped from 55 per cent in February 2025 to 42 percent in late April while opposition increased from 34 per cent to 44 per cent. Net support fell from +21 per cent to -2 per cent in less than three months. The poll found majority opposition among those aged 18-34 (38:48) despite countless claims in recent years that young Australians support nuclear power.

Attitudes in rural and regional areas

Many polls over the past 20 years demonstrate opposition to a locally-built nuclear power plant. For example the 2024 National Climate Action Survey found that 73.5 per cent of participants were moderately to extremely concerned about the possibility of a nuclear plant being built within 50 kilometres of their homes.

Only 11.2 per cent were ‘not at all concerned’. In contrast, about 80 per cent of respondents viewed wind and solar favourably with the majority expressing little or no concern if such projects were established nearby.

A poll conducted by SEC Newgate for News Corp. in mid-2024 found 39 per cent support for nuclear power among regional Australians. Asked to rank 12 energy options, regional Australians ranked nuclear power at number eight.

Building large-scale wind farms and solar farms and new transmission lines in regional areas was more popular across all states than building nuclear power plants on coal sites connected to existing transmission lines.

An April 2025 YouGov poll of 1,622 respondents found that regional and rural Australians support renewables over nuclear by a considerable margin: 50 per cent preferred more wind, solar and batteries compared to 30 per cent who preferred nuclear power.

Polling in March 2025 by 89 Degrees East for the Renew Australia for All campaign found little support for nuclear power in some of the regions targeted for nuclear power plants by the Coalition.

Just 27 per cent of respondents supported “developing large-scale nuclear energy infrastructure” in Gladstone, 24 per cent in the rest of Central Queensland, 24 per cent in Bunbury, 22 per cent in Central West NSW which includes Lithgow, 32 per cent in the Hunter, and 31 per cent in Gippsland. The poll also found that just 13 per cent of respondents thought nuclear reactors would bring down their bills the fastest compared to 72 per cent for renewables.

Responding to the 89 Degrees East polling, RE-Alliance national director Andrew Bray said:

“Support for nuclear reactors seems to be melting down in the regions who’ve been told they are hosting them. These communities weren’t asked if they want nuclear reactors in their backyard, and have been told it’s happening whether they like it or not.

“We see multiple polls from Porter Novelli, CSIRO, 89 Degrees East and more showing strong support for renewable energy on local farmland, between 66 per cent and 71 per cent. Now the polling shows us support for nuclear reactors in these regions is between 22 per cent and 32 per cent.”

For more information on public attitudes towards nuclear power in Australia, see the detailed analysis posted online.

Dr Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and a member of the EnergyScience Coalition.

May 26, 2025 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics