Cancelling new transmission projects will decimate opportunities for electrical workers and apprentices in exactly the regional areas where opportunities are needed, says ETU national secretary Michael Wright
Regional areas will suffer the most from job and investment losses stemming from the Coalition’s energy promises, according to analyses from alarmed energy sector stakeholders.
The Coalition’s push for nuclear, a policy that was announced with much fanfare in December but has largely disappeared from the election hustings, will result in the loss of $58 billion in direct investment in renewable and storage, and cause the loss of 42,000 full time jobs, the Clean Energy Council says.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton’s Budget reply promised to abolish the $19 billion Rewiring the Nation fund will also cause the immediate loss of jobs, the Electrical Trades Union (ETU) says.
The ETU analysis suggests 2000 electrical worker jobs will disappear this year if work stops on major network projects, rising to 7000 job losses in 2029 when building work on new transmission is expected to peak.
The costs are the direct impact from the Coalition’s promise to build seven nuclear reactors across Australia.
In December, it outlined a vision of small modular reactors becoming operational by a hugely ambitious timeline 2035 – notwithstanding the fact that these do not exist as commercial technology yet – and predicted the first large reactor operational by 2037.
But that vision requires renewable generation taking up no more than54 per cent of the total energy supply in 2050 – compared to Labor’s target of 82 per cent by 2030 – and cutting funding for new transmission by 79 per cent to allow room both in the grid and budget, according to modelling by think tank Frontier Economics.
At what cost?
The overall cost of abruptly changing the country’s energy course will be high, according to numbers crunched in a Clean Energy Council analysis.
Their data shows the size of the loss in the years before 2030 alone, and the size and longevity of the damage to investment decision making.
“The energy sector doesn’t plan based on three-to-four-year election cycles. These are 30–40-year investment decisions and investors need to see continued confidence in the sector through stable, long-term policy settings to keep investing in Australia,” says CEC CEO Kane Thornton.
“We need the right policy settings in place and both government and industry working together to accelerate the delivery of cheap, reliable and modern clean energy that works for Australia.”
Renewable generation is set to reach 54 per cent of the National Energy Market (NEM) by 2028 from projects that are being built or have financial backing today.
Preventing renewable energy generation from growing past that level would mean cancelling almost 29 gigawatts (GW) of large scale solar and wind currently proposed or in planning and the $58 billion of capital investment they will need.
Some 37,7000 construction jobs per annum won’t happen, nor will 5000 jobs annually in operations and maintenance, just between 2026 and 2030.
Regional areas will miss out on $68 billion of economic activity and landholders will miss out on $2.7-3.4 billion in payments over a 25-year project life cycle.
Communities will lose a further $696 million in direct contributions from renewable energy projects.
And to top it off, household bills will be $449 higher, according to the Clean Energy Council NEM bill analysis in March of the impact of going nuclear.
Regions will hurt the most
While the nuclear proposal is seen by many analysts as a smokescreen for keeping decrepit coal plants running longer, the immediate ramifications will hit hardest and immediately in the regions.
Renewable energy projects are delivering jobs and financial investment in country areas long neglected by national and state budgets, says Renew Economy‘s David Leitch.
“This is the greatest economic opportunity the regions will ever face in Australia, at least in the last 100 years, and probably in the next 100 years,” he said during a Smart Energy Conference talk on Wednesday.
Cancelling new transmission projects will decimate opportunities for electrical workers and apprentices in exactly the regional areas where opportunities are needed, says ETU national secretary Michael Wright.
“Peter Dutton is planning a jobs bloodbath for the electrical industry,” he said in a statement.
“Cancelling new transmission construction] deprives nearly 12,000 electrical workers, their communities and their families of a living across the country.”
Its analysis suggests that staying the course under the Australian Energy Market Operator’s (AEMO) Step Change plan would lead to almost 43,000 new jobs by 2050. Dutton’s energy plan would lead to an aggregate of almost 25,000 job cuts.
Other jobs that will disappear include construction workers and truck drivers, due to halting new renewable projects in order to meet the 54 per cent cap, says Thornton.
Capping renewables at 54 per cent would not only see Australia miss out on billions of dollars of capital investment and economic growth, but thousands of jobs… and billions of dollars in community benefits would be left on the table,” he said in a statement.
“We need all sides of politics to embrace this private-sector investment into regional Australia and the thousands of well-paid jobs this industry generates every year.
“These are real dollars for farmers, real dollars for country towns and real blue-collar jobs that pay Australians’ bills.”
Australia’s Opposition Party is the prime example of this unfounded optimism. Liberal Coalition leader Peter Dutton is full of enthusiasm in his nuclear plan :
Our plan will deliver a net-zero electricity grid by 2050 and a strong and resilient economy. It will set our country up for decades to come. At the front of this next wave of growth will be those communities which host zero-emissions nuclear plants. Not only will local communities benefit from high paying, multi-generational jobs but communities will be empowered to maximise the benefits from hosting an asset of national importance .……….
A Federal Coalition Government will initially develop two establishment projects using either small modular reactors or modern larger plants such as the AP1000 or APR1400. They will start producing electricity by 2035 (with small modular reactors) or 2037 (if modern larger plants are found to be the best option).
Dutton and his chief nuclear spruiker, Ted O’Brien, gloss easily over concerns about costs, safety, water shortage, environmental effects, timing, and of comparisons with wind and solar power.
Ted O’Brien is indeed a master at this stuff. He looks just the right guy to be a reassuring expert to farmers, and rural communities. His background in marketing shows, with his perfect marketing style. Pleasant, affable, -even warm, calm and confident, O’Brien doesn’t need the detailed facts to interfere with his comfortable assertions about Australia’s wonderful nuclear energy future.
“because hand on heart that’s in our national interest It is the right thing to do I It is why othercountries all around the world are now introducing nuclear energy It’s in Australia’s interest …….We’ll always have to focus on what is right for Australia.
Australia is already behind the eight ball when it comes to zero-emission nuclear energy. The sooner we get going the betterIt has proven around the world to be the fastest way to decarbonise electricity grids.”
Australia, geographically remote from the countries that do have nuclear power, is vulnerable to this kind of “style over substance” persuasion.
If we look at the substance of what is going on in those countries, we find a very mixed bag indeed. The national governments of France, USA, UK, Canada, Japan, Russia, are all for new nuclear power – encouraging and subsidising big and (so far non-existent) small nuclear reactors. Not so much China, which is going allout for renewable energy.
The politicians might be backing nuclear power – but the economic realities tell a different story:
JAPAN. has a huge nuclear WASTE problem. And it’s not just the Fukushima continuing waste disaster. There is little enthusiasm in government or community for reviving the nuclear industry – TEPCO’s rehabilitation plan delays expose limits to nuke power reliance.
These are all nations that are stuck with existing nuclear reactors, many of them aging, and stuck with the very significant waste problem – which, by the way, doesn’t get a mention from the comforting Mr Ted O’Brien.
Australia’s Liberal-National Coalition has as its main policy, the setting up of a tax-payer funded nuclear industry. This is a breathtakingly bold step for a Liberal party, traditionally the champion of private enterprise, and sworn enemy of socialism.
The Coalition doesn’t seem to have much else in the way of policies. Their leader, Peter Dutton. is currently inclined to shut up a bit about nuclear. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12RE1WGl-VQ
It’s up to Ted O’Brien to work his marketing magic. He will probably be helped with his “style above substance” message, by well-funded groups like Advance and The Atlas Network.
Well, it worked in America. Voters, tired of all the bad stuff, turned away from facts and policy details, and voted for an entertaining charlatan. It could work in Australia, and would certainly be a triumph for the nice Mr O’Brien.
Adam Morton Climate and environment editorThu 10 Apr 2025 01.00 AESTShare
A Coalition proposal to limit the rollout of renewable energy could stop at least $58bn of private investment in new developments and halt billions of dollars in flow-on spending in communities, new analysis has warned.
The estimation by consultants Green Energy Markets, on behalf of industry group the Clean Energy Council (CEC), assessed what would happen if renewable energy in Australia was capped at 54% of total use, the level assumed in Frontier Economics modelling relied on by the Coalition to support its nuclear power policy.
The analysis compared this with Labor’s promise to have 82% renewable energy by 2030. It found the 54% level would likely be met in 2028. Stopping industry expansion at that level would result in nearly 29 gigawatts of new large-scale solar and windfarms not being built.
Those developments would be expected to lead to 37,700 full-time-equivalent construction jobs and 5,000 ongoing jobs in operations and maintenance.
The CEC’s chief executive, Kane Thornton, said the Coalition’s position would cost “real dollars for farmers, real dollars for country towns and real blue-collar jobs that pay Australians’ bills”.
“The clean energy sector injected $40bn in essential electricity infrastructure into the national economy over the past five years alone,” Thornton said. “We need all sides of politics to embrace this private-sector investment into regional Australia.”
Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan would spark an Australian water crisis, potentially sucking a mammoth 200 gigalitres away from farmers in dry years through water buybacks and acquisitions, according to a new report by one of the nation’s leading subject matter experts.
The Coalition bitterly opposes the current Labor Government buyback of 43 gigalitres of water allocation a year, less than a quarter of what its own nuclear plan would require.
“The nuclear idea is toxic with voters,” said Liberals Against Nuclear spokesman Andrew Gregson, a former NSW Irrigators’ Council chief executive. “It will require enormous water buybacks from farmers – which the Coalition has fought bitterly against for 15 years.”
The report, Australian nuclear energy proposals, water availability and acquisition options was commissioned by Liberals Against Nuclear and authored by former Land & Water Australia chief executive and ANU visiting fellow, Professor Andrew Campbell. It reveals the scale of water acquisitions required to run the Coalition’s proposed nuclear reactors by asking how much water would need to be acquired through buybacks or compulsory acquisitions to run them at the seven proposed sites.
Relying on the Coalition’s own modelling, the report assumes 13.8 gigawatts of nuclear capacity would replace the existing 8 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity. It estimates water consumption based on newly-commissioned nuclear reactors at Georgia USA, the same ‘off the shelf’ Westinghouse AP-1000 units proposed by The Coalition.
The report found:
Annual high-security water allocation for a mammoth 200 gigalitres would potentially have to be acquired from farmers and other water users, such as coal mines and urban water supplies, to cool the nuclear reactors
There is no guarantee farmers would give up this much water for sale. Compulsory acquisitions would likely be required
Up to 39 gigalitres of annual allocation would need to be acquired each year in the Hunter, up to 25 GL around Mt Piper/Lithgow, up to 125GL in the Latrobe Valley (where the typical annual allocation to the local Macalister Irrigation District is just 32GL), 5GL in Callide and 7.5GL in Collie, WA
The report concludes that 50% of the proposed nuclear generation capacity is already infeasible due to lack of water, and a further 40% would need to be curtailed in dry seasons due to lack of water to cool the reactor, or the water becoming too warm
In short, at 5 of the 7 sites, representing 90% of the proposed generating capacity, nuclear power generation would be an unreliable source of electricity
Most nuclear reactors overseas are near the ocean, large lakes or large rivers – in cold and wet places – due to the enormous amount of high-security water required. Six of Coalition’s seven proposed sites are inland.
“The Nationals have spent 15 years educating rural communities on how much water buybacks hurt them and fighting tooth and nail to protect our agricultural water,” Gregson said. “Now, there is a proposal to take water from the very farmers who grow our food.
“Making matters worse, this precious water will be used to create government-owned electricity companies to compete against private businesses. Forcing farmers to compete with the government when they buy water assaults every value that Liberal voters hold dear.
“We recently saw polling which showed support for nuclear in the political death zone in the proposed host sites. Support was 22% in Central West NSW, 27% in Gladstone, 24% in the rest of Central Queensland, 24% in south-west WA, just 32% in the Hunter and 31% in Gippsland. This policy is electoral poison.
“Nuclear must be dumped. It is already causing an electoral nightmare and in the long run, it is political and economic suicide. It will completely distort our economy, crowding out the private sector. It is the wrong thing to do and means destroying the livelihood of some of our most loyal supporters.
“This water grab threatens to sever the trust between the Coalition and agricultural communities permanently. We’ve spent decades building our reputation as champions of farmers’ rights – particularly water access. Why would we throw away that political capital for nuclear plants that most Australians don’t want?
“Mr Dutton must drop this toxic nuclear policy and focus on our winning strengths of small government, managing the economy and real liberal values. We can still win this election, but not with this nuclear proposal, which is diametrically at odds with our values.
Real Example: The AUKUS submarine deal, projected to cost over $368 billion, ties Australia into US military logistics for decades – yet those funds could be spent on domestic defence innovation, regional aid, or green manufacturing.
Real Example: The AUKUS submarine deal, projected to cost over $368 billion, ties Australia into US military logistics for decades – yet those funds could be spent on domestic defence innovation, regional aid, or green manufacturing.
US dependence. Discover real steps Australia can take to diversify defence, diplomacy & trade while using its currency power to reclaim sovereignty.
Introduction: A Turning Point for Australia
Location: Canberra, 2024. The Defence Minister stands before cameras, repeating familiar rhetoric: “The US alliance is central to Australia’s security.” But in community halls, cafés, and public forums across the nation, a growing number of Australians are beginning to ask: What if it’s not?
Thoughts: Many Australians feel a quiet unease about our nation’s strategic direction. We’ve followed the US into war zones, hosted its military bases, and allowed our foreign policy to align too closely with American interests. Yet few alternative paths are ever seriously discussed in public debate.
Emotions: There’s frustration, even disillusionment. Australia is a sovereign nation. Why then do we act like a client state?
Dialogue: “It’s not anti-American to want independence,” says Jenny, a retired diplomat. “It’s just good strategy.”
Problem: The Australia-US alliance has become a crutch. While it served a purpose post-WWII, the world has changed. The Indo-Pacific is more multipolar than ever. To secure a peaceful, just future, Australia must explore new defence partnerships, deepen regional diplomacy, and reshape trade alliances. Critically, we must use our monetary sovereignty to do this independently, not through the profit-driven mechanisms of public-private partnerships.
The Problem: Locked into a Narrow Strategic Path
Following WWII, Australia signed onto ANZUS, believing American power would guarantee our safety. But since then, Australia has:
• Participated in every major US-led conflict since Vietnam.
• Spent billions hosting US military infrastructure (like Pine Gap).
• Aligned its foreign policy with US military objectives, often at odds with neighbours.
Meanwhile, the security landscape has shifted:
• China, India, and ASEAN nations now influence the Indo-Pacific.
• US influence is declining, with unpredictable leadership changes.
• Regional cooperation, not superpower allegiance, is the new path to peace.
Real Example: The AUKUS submarine deal, projected to cost over $368 billion, ties Australia into US military logistics for decades – yet those funds could be spent on domestic defence innovation, regional aid, or green manufacturing.
Internal Reflections: “Why are we borrowing American power when we have the capacity to build our own?”
Note on Defence Think Tanks: When assessing defence strategies, it’s important to consider the source. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), often referenced by the government and media, receives funding from the Australian Department of Defence, foreign governments, and major US arms manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman.
Heightened Risk Through US Dependence: By embedding ourselves in the strategic priorities of the United States, Australia risks becoming a target in conflicts that are not of our making.
Should tensions escalate between the US and China, Australia’s hosting of American military bases, integration into US-led command systems, and participation in initiatives like AUKUS make us more – not less – vulnerable to retaliation.
Instead of ensuring protection, over reliance on US dependence could make Australia a frontline state in the event of a major geopolitical confrontation. The risk is amplified when one considers the United States’ long and well-documented history of military interventions, regime change operations, and aggressive foreign policy – often justified under the banner of “freedom” but resulting in destabilisation, displacement, and long-term suffering in regions such as Iraq, Vietnam, Libya, and Afghanistan.
The Consequences of Strategic US Dependence
Imagine you’re a young Pacific Island leader sitting across from an Australian diplomat in 2030. Rising seas threaten your nation, yet Australia prioritises nuclear submarines over climate aid. “You talk about friendship,” she says, “but you act like a US outpost.”
This isn’t just geopolitical optics:
• Australia risks alienating regional neighbours.
• We are perceived as an extension of Western military ambitions.
• The economic burden of defence decisions like AUKUS will fall on future generations.
Stat: 56% of Australians in a 2024 Lowy Institute poll said Australia should remain neutral in a US-China conflict. The people are ahead of the policymakers.
Russell Mowbray lives in one of the 39 per cent of all Australian homes that have solar panels.
His house renovation doesn’t include loads of energy features, that are in his words “the bee’s knees”, but what his growing family can afford.
Installing solar was a priority.
“That’s the big one. As soon as you go and do all these new fancy things they come with bills, but offsetting those costs helps massively,” Mr Mowbray said.
“Most of the roof is covered, apart from the odd skylight here and there, but most of that’s covered with panels … We’re getting a fair bit [of power] and not paying a great deal.
“We’re not actually paying anything in summer. So summers are free!”
On how his energy use has changed, Mr Mowbray is blunt.
“It’s not like a conscious decision now that we have to go and turn the air conditioning off or … we can’t use the heating,” he said.
Mr Mowbray runs a house extension and renovation company.
He said every single customer asked him about solar power and electricity.
“There’s limits of costs on what [customers] want to put into their solar and energy efficiencies … Most are pretty comfortable putting solar on because that’s a nice, easy, quick way to help them out with bills. That’s the end game,” he said.
A heated debate
Modern day solar panels have their origins in suburban Canberra.
When ANU professor of engineering Andrew Blakers switched to studying solar energy in the 1980s, it was a little-known niche industry.
“When I started, solar energy was a very small endeavour, small panels in remote areas and on satellites … and today, it is a global juggernaut,” he said.
Professor Blakers has been a key influence in that industry.
He’s watched Australia’s current and future energy needs become a very hot topic.
The source — and cost — of our power is a key federal election issue, with the opposition arguing nuclear must be a key component of our energy mix.
It’s an issue Professor Blakers has a clear position on.
“Pure politics is driving the so-called debate on nuclear energy,” he said.
“It’s ludicrous to suppose that nuclear energy will have a resurrection. It’s akin to saying that film cameras will take over from digital cameras.”
Australian households don’t have the choice of nuclear power right now, and it’s unclear if there will ever be an option of household nuclear systems anywhere in the world.
Household solar systems have been around for a while, and costs have reduced significantly in the past 10 years.
Depending on which state or territory you live in, the payback period for a fully installed system is four-and-a-half to eight years.
And depending on the size of the system, a household will save anywhere from $510 to $1,120 every year on power bills.
……. UNSW associate professor Edward Obbard has decades of experience in nuclear engineering and design. He acknowledges that compared to other sources, nuclear power is “an expensive form of electricity”…………………..
We have renewable technology ‘that works’
Alison Reeve is the deputy program director of energy at the Grattan Institute.
Part of her job is to assess the most practical, cheapest and reliable energy that Australians need.
She said the vast majority of energy in Australia should come from solar and wind plus storage, with a small amount — two to 10 per cent — of gas……………………
“Two things to understand about nuclear power. One is that it’s the most expensive form of generation, and the second one, that it takes a long time to build.”
‘We’re going to live in a changed climate’
A challenge is the need to lay cables and connections for new power sources across the country.
Both Professor Blakers and Ms Reeve acknowledge this, but argue it’s a problem that can be solved.
They say that if Australia continues to follow the renewable path it’s on, there are significant economic benefits………………………………………………………..
The unstoppable momentum of solar
As Australians make day-to-day decisions about how to reduce their bills, Russell Mowbray says renovations and rebuilds are all going in one direction.
“It’s always part of the conversation with the clients we’re dealing with,” he said…………………
And Professor Blakers points to the broader numbers to illustrate what he says is unstoppable momentum.
“Nuclear is being deployed at about two gigawatts per year around the world. Solar and wind last year did 700 gigawatts,” he said.
On March 11 we commemorated 14 years since the terrible nuclear disaster in Fukushima. The impacts of this event are felt to this day with tens of thousands of people still displaced and tens of thousands of tonnes of contaminated liquid being routinely dumped in the Pacific.
Japan is a rich, technically sophisticated and modern country with high safety standards., In these ways it is comparable to Australia – except that unlike Australia Japan has decades of nuclear experience. If the Coalition’s nuclear power proposal were to go ahead, the risk of a nuclear accident is always present. It is simply not worth the risk.
The interactive map at nuclearplume.au uses a directo overlay of the Fukushima radiation plume, based on research originally peer reviewed and published by the European Geosciences Union. It shows the deposition of radioactive caesium-137 from the Fukushima disaster as of July 2011. The darker the shading, the higher the level of radioactive contamination and the higher the radiation exposures for people in those areas. At distances far from the Fukushima plant, radiation exposures were low but even low radiation doses can cause negative health impacts including fatal cancers and cardiovascular disease.
About 90% of the nuclear generation capacity the Coalition proposes to build would not have access to enough water to run safely, according to a report commissioned by Liberals Against Nuclear.
The report authored by Prof Andrew Campbell, a visiting fellow at the Australian National University, assessed nuclear energy’s water needs and the available supply across the seven sites where the Coalition has proposed new reactors.
Campbell found replacing coal generation with “off the shelf” nuclear technology as proposed by the Coalition would require 200 gigalitres of water annually.
He found half of the proposed nuclear capacity was already unfeasible given insufficient water, while a further 40% of the capacity would need to be curtailed during dry seasons.
“At Loy Yang in Victoria, Mt Piper in NSW and Muja in Western Australia, existing water availability is already so constrained that new nuclear power stations of the capacities proposed would lack sufficient cooling water to provide reliable power now, let alone for 80 years into the future, even if the majority of existing irrigation water entitlements were acquired,” the report said.
The volumes required at Callide in Queensland and Liddell in New South Wales would be so significant the demands could place pressure on other water users, including agriculture, industry, urban residents and the environment.
Dave Sweeney, a nuclear policy analyst at the Australian Conservation Foundation, described nuclear energy as the “thirstiest of the energy sources”, which required reliable access to large volumes of water for steam to drive a turbine as well as to cool the reactor core.
On a per-kilowatt hour basis, nuclear power used more water than coal, and “massively more than renewables”, he said……………………………………
Dr Mark Diesendorf, an expert in sustainable energy at the University of NSW, said nuclear power stations were typically larger than coal generators and used more water as a result. “In comparison, solar and wind don’t use any water during operation at all,” he said.
“Australia is the driest continent in the world, apart from Antarctica,” he noted. That meant water use was an important issue, alongside other concerns such as the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the difficulty and expense of managing radioactive waste and the danger of low-level radiation as well as accidents…………………………………………………………….
Andrew Gregson, the spokesperson for Liberals Against Nuclear and a former state director of the Liberal party in Tasmania, said the nuclear water grab threatened to “sever the trust between the Coalition and agricultural communities permanently”.
Thank you, Peter Garrett, for telling it like it is in his take-down of the Coalition’s ill-conceived, expensive and dangerous nuclear energy policy (“I’ve spent my life fighting nuclear: Here’s what Dutton isn’t telling you about his reactors” March 30). Peter Dutton and his cronies have been allowed to get away with their ridiculous nuclear thought bubble for too long. The Labor Party has been relatively weak in its criticism of what is essentially a “smoke and mirrors” idea to present an alternative to developing renewable energy and to appease the fossil fuel lobby in the bargain. The anti-nuclear energy message needs to be hammered out to all Australians before the election. It is simply a backward and disastrous way to go. Robert Hickey, Green Point
Thank you so much, Peter Garrett, for your insightful article. You have most eloquently summed up my thoughts and fear of Australia going down the rabbit hole of nuclear power. As a kid, I witnessed the psychological stress of the Cold War when it was thought that our world could end any day, with Russia and America in full conflict. It’s why Australians turned its back on nuclear all those years ago. For those of my era that have read Peter’s article, please share it with your children and get them to share among their friends. I’ve yet to see a mushroom cloud of destruction coming from a solar panel or pumped hydro. Ray Gilmour, Blaxland
Peter Garrett’s article makes very convincing points. Another negative aspect of these proposed nuclear reactors is the amount of cooling water which is required for them to function. These hypothetical nuclear reactors would require at least twice as much water as the existing coal-fired power stations use, and yet we live on the driest inhabited continent. These reactors sound like another thought bubble from Mr Dutton. Evan Bailey, Glebe
Andrew Tillett, AFR, Foreign affairs, defence correspondent, 3 Apr 25
The alliance with the United States is facing its toughest test in decades after Donald Trump imposed a 10 per cent tariff on Australian exports as part of his escalating trade war, which has sent shockwaves around the world and heightened the risk of a global recession.
Markets plunged on news of Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs, with Australian stocks shedding more than $21 billion, while traders bet the Reserve Bank could cut interest rates up to four times this year.
Australia escaped Trump’s tariffs relatively unscathed, with just the minimum baseline of 10 per cent applied to goods exported to the US, although the President singled out the longstanding ban on American beef as a grievance.
A government source, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivities, said there had been indications from the US that it was willing to negotiate to reduce or remove tariffs on Australian exports.
However, the government remains on alert for more tariff hikes after pharmaceuticals, copper and gold were among a select few commodities exempted from Trump’s “liberation day” executive order.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the tariffs were totally unwarranted and would prompt some Australians to question the relationship with the US. Former prime minister Paul Keating suggested Trump’s tariff campaign cast doubt on the value of the ANZUS alliance, the cornerstone of Australian defence policy for more than 70 years.
“The administration’s tariffs have no basis in logic and they go against the basis of our two nations’ partnership. This is not the act of a friend,” Albanese said.
The Australian people have every right to view this action by the Trump administration as undermining our free and fair trading relationship and counter to the shared values that have always been at the heart of our two nations’ long-standing friendship. This will have consequences for how Australians see this relationship.”
Keating said the announcement was effectively the death knell of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the US-led military alliance with Europe, a decision which would inform other allied relationships with the US.
“Australia’s clutch of Austral-Americans, that phalanx of American acolytes, must have choked on their breakfasts, as Donald Trump laid out his blitzkrieg on globalisation, with all its implications for the rupture of cooperation and goodwill among nations,” he said.
“If NATO, America’s principal strategic alliance, is expendable, what credible rationale could underpin US fidelity to ANZUS and with it, to Australia?”
Former foreign minister Bob Carr said the alliance with the US “counts for nothing” and was reason to axe the AUKUS pact, Australia’s agreement to acquire nuclear-powered submarines from the US and UK…………………………………………………………………………………
a mining industry source, speaking anonymously, said the government could buy up critical minerals and stockpile them to use as leverage in future trade negotiations.
I am Heather Hoff, cofounder of Mothers For Nuclear, and nonprofit based in California, but with informal chapters or groups of mothers and mums around the country and around the world…………………….
Heather Hoff continues (extract)
We are separate and different from the recent organizing Mums for Nuclear under the umbrella of Nuclear for Australia. …………….. As for the mums in Australia, we have already shared some of their stories on our website, and now the same mothers are also speaking up on behalf of Nuclear for Australia.
Terry Mills says: 31 Mar 25
Heather thank you for your contribution.
In Australia we want answers on several fundamental points ranging from where waste will be dumped/stored ?
Is the exemplar for the SMR the Westinghouse model or if not is it a Chinese or Russian alternative (very important)?
What is the delivery/installation/commissioning time frame from time an order is placed ?
What is the fixed cost for acquisition/assembly/installation/commissioning (within ten percent)?
What is the energy output of the small modular reactor (SMR) under consideration : i.e. how many conventional dwellings would be fully serviced and what could an average householder (four persons) expect to pay for that energy over a 12 month period ?
Answers to some of these fundamental questions would certainly assist us in Australia as our politicians have been less than forthcoming.
ThankYou
Bert Hetebry says: 31 Mar 25
Heather, the only question I have is WHY?
Why when we have an abundance of solar power Why when we have an abundance of wind power Why when we have battery technology to store energy when wind and sun are not providing that power
Why when nuclear is so hellishly expensive to build Why when nuclear is not just expensive to build but seems to be too difficult to build in a timely manner Why when the waste produced becomes a time bomb for future environmental problems.
So yes, Heather, Why?
Roswell says:
Thank you for your comment, Heather. Much appreciated.
Terry speaks for the most of us: we do have questions.
Bert Hetebry says:
Our contributor Roswell has a wonderfully understated sense of humour, an Australian sense of humour which at times is layered with soft, gentle sarcasm.
As he so clearly points out, the mums and mothers he cites have a vested interest in promoting nuclear power.
Kathryn says:
I wonder if these foolish pro-nuclear women and the RWNJs (like that short-sighted political psychopath, Peter Dutton) have STOPPED and given any thought about what the hell our government is going to do with the MASSIVE amount of NUCLEAR WASTE nuclear energy inevitably produces?
Do they realise that nuclear waste is, in fact, RADIOACTIVE for THOUSANDS OF YEARS posing a REAL, perpetual danger and deadly health risk for future GENERATIONS of future Australians? Have they STOPPED – even for a minute – to consider WHERE an inhumane, racist and self-serving LNP regime are likely to DUMP not only the nuclear waste of Australian-generated nuclear power but, likely, to import nuclear waste from other nations (such as America, the UK and/or other European nations) in order to make a “fast buck” at OUR expense?
No doubt, the likes of Dutton et al will consider it quite OK to dump toxic waste in what THEY consider to be “remote” areas of the outback trying to convince themselves (and anyone who will listen) that “nobody lives there” when, in fact, such areas are inhabited by communities of vulnerable indigenous aboriginals and remote farming communities!
Nuclear power = RADIOACTIVE NUCLEAR WASTE and, as such, will NEVER be a safe, acceptable alternative for our children, our grandchildren and our descendants! Australians live in the SUNNIEST continent on the planet. As such, the intensive further research and refinement of SOLAR POWER is the SENSIBLE choice because it can be accessed so easily, is inexpensive to process and, by far, the best, safest and cleanest form of energy available!
Canguro says: 30 Mar 2025
Unlikely to find any MUMS FOR NUCLEAR in Japan, in particular around such districts as Fukushima, Nagasaki, or Hiroshima, along with the Ukrainian mothers in proximity to Chernobyl, or moms close to the Three Mile Island in the USA, or indeed many other moms in the target areas of radiation fallout from a raft of similar incidents of varying severity and the associated human toll.
As Noel Wauchope’s essay implies, selling the sizzle is as equally important as the charred sausage; ironic doesn’t even begin to cover the potential horrors of human endeavour gone awry, as is so often the case and in particular in this instance of the allure of nuclear-fission based energy sources; tens of thousands of highly trained and knowledgeable engineers & technicians and still, things can and do go disastrously wrong.
Much to the distress of early implementers, Oppenheimer & Einstein for example, the lament was that the nuclear genie has well and truly been released and now mankind must find a way to manage this monstrous entity. The attraction persists, and the list of commercial nuclear reactors is extensive across many countries.
I guess the MUMS FOR NUCLEAR are acting out of self-interest as opposed to a detached rational assessment of the pros & cons of nuclear-derived energy for the general benefit of the wider population, given the range of non-potentially lethal options within the renewables sector. Do they hold hen’s parties, where they sit around fondling lumps of uranium or radium… lights out and enjoy the glow?
Just prior to the election being called, Nationals leader David Littleproud was pressed on ABC’s Radio National breakfast on whether insurance costs were included in the modelling exercise putting a dollar figure on the Coalition’s nuclear plans.
It has been tough for the Coalition: nuclear power is notoriously expensive, and so trying to present a narrative of it being cheap has been tricky. Littleproud had a confident answer in response to being challenged about insuring nukes:
“Well, as many countries around the world do that is actually factored in and in fact, self insurance is normally what they undertake. So it’s not a significant amount of anything that goes into the running cost”.
The majority of the Coalition’s claims regarding nuclear power come from a December 2024 report published by Frontier Economics, which itself has been widely criticised by experts.
It pulls off the trick of presenting an expensive approach to energy transition as cheap by a variety of accounting tricks, previously covered at RenewEconomy. But what it doesn’t seem to do is actually incorporate the costs of insurance, as claimed by Littleproud.
In fact, the Frontier Economics modelling does not mention insurance at all. Not in any context, or even in passing, or in footnotes (nor is it mentioned in the Coalition’s ‘blueprint‘). The Frontier report simply declares an assumption about the capital costs of nuclear power ($10,000 per kilowatt). RenewEconomy emailed Frontier asking for more details, but received no response.
The 2024-25 CSIRO GenCost consultation draft does contain an assumption around the insurance costs of nuclear, and ultimately concludes that “nuclear power does not currently provide the most cost competitive solution for low emission electricity in Australia”, and that “while nuclear technologies have a long operational life, this factor provides no unique cost advantage over shorter-lived technologies”. Notably, GenCost actually assumes a problematically low cost for nuclear power, as discussed here recently.
It is bad enough that Littleproud seems to be making a false claim about it being ‘factored in’ to the modelling, but insuring extremely risky technologies prone to massive cost blowouts and very vulnerable to worsening climate disasters is not going to be cheap.
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.
“Proposed nuclear communities are asking key questions about nuclear reactors which have not been answered: Where is the water coming from? Where is the waste being stored? Where is the detail?“
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.
“Proposed nuclear communities are asking key questions about nuclear reactors which have not been answered: Where is the water coming from? Where is the waste being stored? Where is the detail?
Nuclear support has melted down in proposed nuclear communities, new polling released by a not-for-profit organisation working with regional communities for more than a decade, RE-Alliance, revealed today.
Energy attitudes polling by respected research firm 89 Degrees East and commissioned by the Renew Australia for All campaign has revealed support for building nuclear reactors at just:
27% in Gladstone
24% in the rest of Central Queensland
24% in Bunbury
22% in Central West NSW which includes Lithgow
32% in Hunter
31% Gippsland.
Further, the same polling showed just 13% of people polled thought nuclear reactors would bring down their bills the fastest (see table below on original ).
The sample size for the polling was 200 local residents in Gladstone, 151 in Central West NSW, 151 in Bunbury, 145 in Central Queensland excluding Gladstone, 301 in Hunter, 300 in Gippsland. Those polled were asked: How do you feel about developing large-scale nuclear energy infrastructure?
RE-Alliance National Director, Andrew Bray, said he was not surprised support for nuclear had bombed, because community engagement is key.
“RE-Alliance stands by the principle that all energy developments in regional Australia need broad community support – whether it’s for solar, wind, batteries, coal, coal seam gas or nuclear reactors,” Mr 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. Community engagement is by no means easy, but you’ve got to at least try. It’s no surprise support is so low.
“Proposed nuclear communities are asking key questions about nuclear reactors which have not been answered: Where is the water coming from? Where is the waste being stored? Where is the detail?
“Communities also don’t believe that nuclear power is capable of bringing down their energy bills anytime soon and see renewable energy solutions as a better bet. 72% of people said renewables would bring down bills faster, compared to just 13% who said nuclear.
“We see multiple polls from Porter Novelli, CSIRO, 89 Degrees East and more showing strong support for renewable energy on local farmland, between 66% and 71%. Now the polling shows us support for nuclear reactors in these regions is between 22% and 32%.
“Regional communities have enough uncertainty already. Let’s stop with the whiplash and stay the course on a shift to renewable energy which is already almost halfway done.”
Full results of the two poll questions can be found in the Appendix below (on original).
Note: The difference between a poll and a survey is survey respondents select themselves whereas respondents to a poll are selected by the pollster, weighted so the sample accurately represents the population being sampled, by gender, age group, occupation, and so on.
“Editors and reporters should carefully evaluate whether to report online surveys, having regard to their scope and methodology. They should be cautious of open-access online polls where the sample size and the exact questions asked are unknown and the results have been generated by self-selecting respondents.”
The polling was administered online with recruitment sourced from a consumer opt-in panel provided by Pure Profile, weighted to ensure a representative sample in line with ABS proportions for age, gender and location.
This study was conducted by the research firm 89 Degrees East as part of a larger poll with a total sample size of 5,952 Australians. The sample included a nationally representative poll of 2,014 Australians, with an additional boost sample of 1,900 Australians residing in Renewable Energy Zones (REZs). To ensure robust representation within each REZ, quotas and targeted postcode sampling boosts were applied.
The confidence level of the general population sample is +/- 2.14% at the 95% confidence level. Fieldwork was conducted by 89 Degrees East in March 2025. 89 Degrees East is a member of The Research Society of Australia and the Australian Polling Council.
If you’re a middle aged female with an interest in solar power, nuclear campaigners want you.
In the week 15th to the 21st of March, Nuclear for Australia and its offshoot astroturfing group, Mums For Nuclear, spent a combined $89,233 on Meta ads, according to online political database WhoTargets.Me.
Mums for Nuclear targets mothers with claims that nuclear power will reduce power bills and is essential to a “clean energy future for our children”. The ads claim “We’re not activists or lobbyists, but we know nuclear is our future”. Nuclear for Australia, which is backed by mogul Dick Smith, is the contact email address on the account.
Download the browser extension at WhoTargets.Me to see if you’re being targeted by political advertisers
While men and women saw the ad, around 18% of the budget was spent targeting women only. The group is also running print ads and issued a media release.………………..
Belinda Noble, founder of climate communications group, Comms Declare said, “Targeting mums with false promises of cheap power bills and climate solutions is as manipulative as it is cynical. The CSIRO has confirmed that only renewables can provide the cuts in climate pollution that we need this decade.”
Dutton has not visited Australia’s only nuclear reactor and has not received a brief from our country’s expert agency on the policy area he was developing. For completeness, I also asked the Government’s nuclear safety regulator, ARPANSA, if Dutton had visited them or sought advice from them. FOI came up with the same answer from them. Nothing at all.
Is Peter Dutton’s proposed ‘rollout’ of modular nuclear reactors real policy or just politics? What research has he done to develop the policy? Not much, it seems. Rex Patrick reports.
In September 2020, the Morrison Government released a Low Emissions Technology Statement that placed Small Modular Reactors (SMR) on a list of watching brief technologies. SMR developments were to be monitored to see if they might play a part in Australia’s energy future.
Consistent with that listing, the Government directed the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) to join an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Coordinated Research Project focused on the Economic Appraisal of SMRs to provide information to assist in evaluating the technology’s economic viability.
ANSTO assembled a team to prepare, among other things, a case study on Australia’s potential to adopt SMR technologies in the future and analyse financing options for the technology. As part of that project, ANSTO even supported a University of Queensland PhD thesis on SMRs.
Flip flop politics
Peter Dutton, a minister in the Government that commissioned the ANSTO work, came out mid-way through 2023 with a proclamation of the Coalition’s plans for Australian to adopt SMRs as a preferred tool in our movement towards net zero carbon emissions.
In doing so Dutton opened himself up to a political battering because of the nascent state of SMR development around the world and huge questions around costs.
As Peter Dutton talks up nuclear power, it is not surprising to see Andrew Liveris shifting his pitch from a ‘gas led recovery’ to a call for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) to be considered for the 2032 Brisbane Olympics. Dutton is engaged in politics, Liveris in fantasy. Rex Patrick reports on the nuclear distraction.]
Undeterred, in early March Dutton doubled down on nuclear power, switching his thinking to large nuclear power plants scattered about the country. As public controversy raged about the new plans, Dutton has started reinjecting SMRs into the total mix.
There are now to be a mix of economic and taxation incentives for the local communities targeted by the Coalition to host a nuclear reactor.
“Somewhere in a Coalition back office, there’s a whiteboard with a map waiting to be unveiled.”
In response to their hip flip to a larger nuclear power plant and his small flop back to SMRs, I thought MWM set out to see if Dutton has visited ANSTO or taken a brief from them in relation to his plans.
After all, there’s no shortage of precedent for parliamentary oppositions to seek factual briefings from government agencies, especially on complex and specialised subjects.
Missing homework
In response to their hip flip to a larger nuclear power plant and his small flop back to SMRs, I thought MWM set out to see if Dutton has visited ANSTO or taken a brief from them in relation to his plans.
After all, there’s no shortage of precedent for parliamentary oppositions to seek factual briefings from government agencies, especially on complex and specialised subjects.
In a recent nuclear estimates brief prepared for the CEO of ANSTO, the first two paragraphs stated:
“As the custodian of Australia’s nuclear expertise and capabilities, ANSTO is well positioned to advise governments, Australian parliaments, and members of the public on the technical aspects of nuclear power and nuclear power developments globally.”
“ANSTO has significant insight into what other countries and jurisdictions are doing around the world in terms of nuclear power.”
As mentioned above, ANSTO was specifically engaged by the former Coalition Government to take a look at SMRs. So, I was left gobsmacked when a Freedom of Information request I made to ANSTO to find out what Dutton’s interactions with ANSTO had been over the past five years returned nil information.
Dutton has not visited Australia’s only nuclear reactor and has not received a brief from our country’s expert agency on the policy area he was developing. In some measure, it explains the flip-flopping and limited detail in many of his announcements.
For completeness, I also asked the Government’s nuclear safety regulator, ARPANSA, if Dutton had visited them or sought advice from them. FOI came up with the same answer from them. Nothing at all.
Politics, not policy
You can’t develop policy just by chin-wagging at party room meetings and with briefs from vested business interests. That’s not how it works. You have to get independent and expert advice, and in the case of nuclear matters, a vital place to get that advice in Australia is ANSTO and ARPANSA.
So, just what policy work has Dutton done? In large part, he appears completely dependent on the Google skills of his little-known Climate Change and Energy spokesperson, Ted O’Brien.
With a background in marketing, O’Brien has no ministerial experience, so the practicalities of major project implementation may be quite novel for him. He did once chair a parliamentary committee inquiry into nuclear energy, but as so often is the case, the research there was largely done by the committee secretariat, with O’Brien just adding a thin layer of pro-nuclear evangelism on the top.
It’s pretty safe to say that, in the absence of comprehensive briefs from and engagement with Australia’s leading experts, Dutton is not engaging in serious policy development. Rather it’s a manoeuvre to achieve political differentiation and keep the anti-renewals, climate-change-denying core of his Coalition happy.
Dutton’s approach to policy development, in this instance, says just as much about him as it does about his nuclear plans.
Rex Patrick is a former Senator for South Australia and earlier a submariner in the armed forces. Best known as an anti-corruption and transparency crusader, Rex is running for the Senate on the Lambie Network ticket next year – www.transparencywarrior.com.au.
Antinuclear 