Turnbull says ‘stupid’ Nationals picking ‘fight over nothing’ as Liberals weigh nuclear
An agreement on nuclear is likely to settle on the lifting of the moratorium, but without binding the Liberals to keeping the full policy taken to the last election.
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.
ABC News, By political reporter Tom Crowley, national political lead David Speers and political reporter Pablo Viñales, Fri 23 May
In short:
David Littleproud had a last-minute change of heart yesterday about detonating the alliance with the Liberals, but insists his four policy demands must be “ratified” before the partnership can resume.
In a lengthy early evening meeting, frustrated Liberals said the Nationals were acting in bad faith but that the Coalition was important and they were determined to be “the adults in the room”.
What’s next?
Malcolm Turnbull has told the Insiders: On Background podcast that this amounts to “holding a gun to the Liberal Party’s head” and risks damaging both parties if Sussan Ley is seen to capitulate to Nationals’ pressure.
Resentful Liberals have unloaded on the Nationals for holding them to ransom over a series of policy demands, which former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has likened to “holding a gun to [the] head” of the party he once led.
But while a lengthy Liberal phone hook-up late on Thursday ended without a clear timeline for resolution, colleagues agreed with leader Sussan Ley that the Coalition should be salvaged, and a nuclear deal seems likely.
Mr Littleproud had a last-minute change of heart yesterday on detonating the alliance, hitting pause just hours away from enacting a split when Ms Ley agreed to consider his four policy demands.
Irritated Liberals said they believed their junior partner was acting in bad faith but agreed to be the “adults in the room”, as one put it, and will meet again today to discuss their position.
‘Back off’, says Turnbull
Mr Turnbull, who as prime minister regularly clashed with Nationals on climate and energy, said the minor party should “back off” and the Liberal Party should not agree to any policies so soon after a heavy election defeat.
“Policies are of academic interest only until such time as we get close to an election … This is a fight about nothing. They’ve just done enormous harm for no purpose at all, the Nationals, by blowing it up in this way,” he told the ABC’s Insiders: On Background.
“It’s really, really unwise [and] stupid politically … The National Party is treating the Liberal Party with zero respect and trying to stand over them, and if Sussan Ley goes along with it … everybody will be saying this is just another case of the tail wagging the dog.”
Liberals frustrated but ready to talk
There is disagreement between Ms Ley and Mr Littleproud about exactly what led to Thursday’s stay of execution, announced by the Nationals leader yesterday in a chaotic press conference in the corridors of Parliament House.
Ms Ley said talks resumed after Mr Littleproud agreed he would respect cabinet solidarity, but Mr Littleproud insisted this was never in doubt and talks resumed because the Liberals agreed to consider “ratification” of his demands.
In a phone call with Liberal colleagues on Thursday afternoon, Ms Ley discussed the possibility of a limited agreement on nuclear energy, supermarket divestiture, a $20 billion off-budget regional fund, and better connectivity in the bush.
The proposal was for those policies to be carved out of what was going to be a comprehensive review of everything the Liberals took to the election………………………….
Nuclear agreement likely on moratorium
Liberals who spoke to the ABC were broadly confident the Nationals’ demands could be met.
An agreement on nuclear is likely to settle on the lifting of the moratorium, but without binding the Liberals to keeping the full policy taken to the last election.
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 Nationals colleagues are on the record calling for the nuclear policy to be retained in full, while Matt Canavan, who challenged Mr Littleproud for the leadership, is among the voices advocating for the net zero emissions target to be dropped entirely…………………….
Mr Turnbull said it was important that the Coalition be reformed, or else there was “no prospect of forming a government”.
Turnbull declines to endorse Ley, savages Dutton
The former prime minister, who has been a vocal critic of his party since leaving politics after his ousting, blamed longtime rival Tony Abbott and his conservative allies for the Coalition’s calamitous election defeat.
“The angertainment ecosystem in which the right wing of politics exists nowadays, they got what they wanted. They got Peter Dutton as the leader and they got control of the party, and they have burned it to the ground,” he said………………………………………….. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-23/turnbull-says-nationals-picking-fight-over-nothing/105325522
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.
Trump’s man in London backs Aukus partnership with UK and Australia
The new US ambassador to the UK Warren Stephens used his first public speech to praise the trilateral security alliance.
David Hughes, Jndependent, UK, Monday 19 May 2025
Donald Trump’s new ambassador to the UK has used his first public speech to back the Aukus partnership with Britain and Australia.
Warren Stephens highlighted how “vital the US-UK relationship is to our countries and to the world” at an event in Parliament attended by Sir Keir Starmer.
Mr Stephens said the Aukus partnership, which is developing a new fleet of nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarines for the UK and Australia, would help maintain a “free and open Indo-Pacific”………………………………………..
Mr Stephens also highlighted the economic opportunities from the project: “Government works best when we get out of the way and let our businesses innovate, compete and collaborate to improve people’s lives……………………… https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/australia-aukus-trump-london-barrow-b2754029.html
David Littleproud cites nuclear energy disagreement as major factor in Coalition split
The Conversation, John Quiggin , Professor, School of Economics, The University of Queensland, May 20, 2025
Nationals’ leader David Littleproud has singled out nuclear energy as a key reason for his party’s spectacular split from the Liberals, as both parties seek to rebuild following the Coalition’s devastating election loss.
Speaking to the media on Tuesday, Littleproud said:
our party room has got to a position where we will not be re-entering a Coalition agreement with the Liberal Party […] Those positions that we couldn’t get comfort around [include] nuclear being a part of an energy grid into the future.
The junior partner had long held strong sway over the Coalition’s climate and energy stance, including the plan to build nuclear reactors at seven sites across Australia using taxpayer funds.
After public sentiment appeared to go against nuclear power during the election, the Nationals had reportedly been weighing up changes to the policy. It would have involved walking away from the plan to build reactors and instead lifting a federal ban on nuclear power.
But some quarters of the Nationals remained deeply wedded to the original nuclear plan. Meanwhile, Nationals senator Matt Canavan had called for the net-zero emissions target to be scrapped, and Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie insisted renewable energy was harming regional communities.
Now, with the Nationals unshackled from the binds of the Coalition agreement, the future of its energy policy will be keenly watched.
A graceful way out of nuclear
Littleproud on Tuesday did not confirm where exactly he expected the Nationals to land on energy policy. But he rejected suggestions his party was unwise to stick with the nuclear policy after the Coalition’s poor election result, saying public opinion had been swayed by a “scare campaign”.
Even if the Coalition had won the election, however, the policy was running out of time.
CSIRO analysis showed, contrary to the Coalition’s claims, a nuclear program that began this year was unlikely to deliver power by 2037. But up to 90% of coal-fired power stations in the national electricity market are projected to retire before 2035, and the entire fleet is due to shut down before 2040.Now, the earliest possible start date for nuclear is after the 2028 election. This means plugging nuclear plants into the grid as coal-fired power stations retire becomes virtually impossible.
This very impossibility provided the National Party with a graceful way out of the policy. It could have regretfully accepted the moment had passed.
With nuclear out of the picture, and coal-fired power almost certain to be phased out, that would have left two choices for the Coalition: a grid dominated by gas, or one dominated by renewables.
However, expanding gas supply frequently requires the controversial process of fracking, which is deservedly unpopular in many regions where it’s undertaken.
What’s more, gas is an expensive energy source which can only be a marginal add-on in the electricity mix, used alongside batteries to secure the system during peak times.
Logically, that would have left renewable energy as the only feasible energy policy option for the Nationals – but it wasn’t to be…………………………….
The Nationals’ hostility to renewables may in part be driven by pressure from anti-renewable activist groups.
The Institute of Public Affairs, for example, has sought to promote rural opposition to renewables and emissions reduction and focused its efforts on Nationals-held seats
And the now-defunct Waubra Foundation, named after the small town in northwest Victoria, opposed wind farms and claimed they caused health problems. The group was created by an oil and gas executive with no apparent links to the town…………………………………………………………………………..
Renewables can be good for the bush
Nationals Senate leader Bridget McKenzie last week said her party was concerned that renewable energy targets are “impacting rural and regional communities”. The party has long voiced concern about the impact of large-scale wind and solar projects in the bush.
However, many farmers and other rural landowners benefit financially from hosting solar and wind farms, which, in many cases, do not prevent the land from also being used for farming.
Concerns that wind farms and solar panels might slash the value of neighbouring properties have been shown to be ill-founded.
And importantly, the increasing frequency of extreme climate events is already a challenge to Australia’s agriculture sector and will become more difficult. Tackling the problem is in regional Australia’s interests.
The Nationals’ hostility to renewable energy comes at a cost to rural and regional Australians. But Littleproud clearly could not balance competing views within the Nationals on energy policy while inking a deal with the Liberals. Instead, the party will now go it alone. https://theconversation.com/david-littleproud-cites-nuclear-energy-disagreement-as-major-factor-in-coalition-split-256904
Nuclear power blows up coalition’s political marriage
Canberra Times, By Dominic Giannini, May 20 2025
Nuclear energy has blown up a political agreement between the Nationals and the Liberals after leaders failed to reach common ground, but left the door open for a reconciliation.
The traditional political marriage couldn’t be consecrated following a disastrous result for the coalition at the federal election with the Nationals standing firm on wanting to retain four key policies.
These included remaining committed to nuclear energy, divestiture powers to break up big supermarkets, a $20 billion investment fund that would disperse $1 billion a year on regional infrastructure and universal phone services……………………………….
The change in opposition doesn’t have a substantial impact on the government’s ability to pass legislation with Labor commanding a major majority in the lower house and only needing the Greens in the Senate.
The Liberals still have the numbers to pass legislation in the Senate with Labor without the Nationals.
Without a coalition agreement, Labor has a significant electoral advantage with the Liberals holding fewer than 30 of 150 lower house seats and the Nationals 15.
The Nationals won’t sit in shadow cabinet, meaning they won’t hold sway over policies and the half-dozen MPs who were around the table will take a paycut………………………………………. https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8971350/nuclear-power-blows-up-coalitions-political-marriage/
Sussan Ley, David Littleproud caught in coalition rift over net-zero and nuclear deal
The Nightly 19 May 25
A senior Liberal frontbencher has urged the party not to abandon its net-zero target as divides over climate and nuclear energy policies threaten the coalition’s election rebuild.
Liberal leader Sussan Ley and Nationals counterpart David Littleproud continue to hammer out a power-sharing agreement, with the number of ministers assigned to each party central to negotiations.
But outspoken blocs within each party are urging their leaders to ditch the coalition’s support of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050, while some Nationals want a commitment from the Liberals to keep their nuclear power policy before signing a new agreement.
Liberal senator Jane Hume said policies were a matter for each party room, but her personal opinion was to keep net-zero.
“The electorate has sent us a very clear message about what it is that they want in their government,” she told Sky News on Monday.
“Abandoning net zero, I don’t necessarily think is consistent with that.”…………………………………………………… https://thenightly.com.au/politics/sussan-ley-david-littleproud-caught-in-coalition-rift-over-net-zero-and-nuclear-deal-c-18739795
Labor’s got a new mandate to act. Still condones war crimes. Why?
by Michael Pascoe | May 19, 2025 https://michaelwest.com.au/labors-got-a-new-mandate-still-condones-war-crimes-why/
The Palestine elephant remains in the room. It’s putrid, stinking of death while our government holds its nose and looks away, ignoring the war crimes, writes Michael Pascoe.
Yesterday, The Guardian reported another 140 people killed in Gaza, while Israel continues its blockade of all aid from coming in, now entering its 11th week.
Let’s keep this very simple: Is depriving the civilian population of food, water and medicine a war crime? Yes, it is.
So, what is the penalty for this crime? The Australian Government says there is none. You can blockade a couple of million people, use starvation as a weapon of war, and Australia will look the other way.
The old “the standard you walk past is the standard you accept” line means we effectively condone this crime. That we have willingly imposed sanctions for lesser crimes makes us arch hypocrites by ignoring this crime against humanity.
We are made fools when we have given more than $100 million in humanitarian aid to Gaza, but such aid is now blocked without meaningful protest.
We are made jokes of by having imposed sanctions on seven Israeli individuals over settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank, but dare not mention.
even thinking of action over starving and killing tens of thousands of children.
“We call on Israel to hold perpetrators of settler violence to account and to cease its ongoing settlement activity,” Foreign Minister Wong said last year while announcing sanctions on the token individuals.
All words and no action
“The Albanese Government has been firm and consistent that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal under international law and a significant obstacle to peace,” Penny Wong said, but the Albanese Government is game to do nothing more than to mouth those words.
Apply financial and travel sanctions against all Israeli West Bank settlers – a reasonable course of action against those breaching international law – and I might begin to believe the government means it.
But the colonisation of the West Bank pales in comparison with the Gaza blockade.
We know exactly who is responsible, who is committing this catastrophic crime: Benjamin Netanyahu and his Cabinet. And we do nothing.
Australia actively maintains sanctions against a long list of individuals and organisations. You can read all their names, date and place of birth and last known address on what DFAT calls the Consolidated List.
They range from targeted financial sanctions and travel bans on members of the Myanmar military and companies and banks that deal with them to the three individuals held directly responsible for shooting down MH17 over Ukraine, but there’s not even a wrist slap for those ordering malnutrition, disease and death for Palestinians in Gaza.
Double standards
In mitigation for the Russian and Ukrainian MH17 killers, it is possible they did not realise they were destroying a civilian aircraft. On the other hand, there is no lack of knowledge about what Israel is doing to Gaza, no doubt about the murder of aid workers, about the hunger and the denial of medical supplies.
The Jewish Council of Australia has called out genocide, has underlined the International Court of Justice orders, and has repeatedly called on our government to impose sanctions. The government has ignored it.
The grubby politicisation of the Gaza war in the lead up to the federal election, the dog whistling, has run its course. It ended up doing little more than increasing antisemitism and Islamophobia.
Now Albanese has a government so secure it can afford to burn senior Cabinet ministers. Now it has the political capital to stand on principle or continue to effectively condone war crimes.
There are two simple questions to be asked of every government member, and especially the Prime Minister.
The first is the one this started with: Is depriving the civilian population of food, water and medical supplies a war crime?
The second: What are you going to do about it?
Australian Financial Review readers want nuclear plan scrapped, climate ambition raised
Paul Karp AFR, 18 May 25
Most readers of The Australian Financial Review want the Coalition to scrap its nuclear power policy and believe the re-elected Albanese government has a mandate to be more ambitious on its climate policies.
A fortnightly poll of readers found overwhelming support for Opposition Leader Sussan Ley over her vanquished Liberal rival Angus Taylor, but a deep split about whether the Coalition should recommit to net zero emissions by 2050 under her leadership.
As Ley faces calls from the Nationals to include nuclear power in the Coalition agreement, the poll found most readers (57 per cent) want the Coalition to scrap nuclear.
The nuclear policy should be dumped, the business case does not stack up,” said one reader.
“The problem with the Coalition’s nuclear policy is that there are no [small modular reactors] currently working anywhere and the one being built is already over budget,” said another.
A third reader noted that Australia “is not an established player, we have no industry and experience” in nuclear power, meaning that “even if a plant was started today it would be many years off operating. The policy was a furphy.”
Another said: “The nuclear policy [Peter] Dutton took to the election was seen by the electorate as a ploy to kick the emissions abatement can down the road.”……………………………………………………………… https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/afr-readers-want-nuclear-plan-scrapped-climate-ambition-raised-20250516-p5lzv2?utm_content=heres_what_else_happened_today&list_name=4CC7DE0B-EBBE-4073-9A9C-F421CED270D0&promote_channel=edmail&utm_campaign=afr-need-to-know&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=2025-05-18&mbnr=MzA5MjY3OTA&instance=2025-05-18-20-06-AEST&jobid=31478047
The fallout of Dutton’s nuclear approach
Gladstone Bulletin, Dave Sweeney, Australian Conservation Foundation, 16 May 25,
When he unveiled the Coalition’s nuclear ambitions last June, Peter Dutton said:
“I’m very happy for the election to be a referendum on energy, on nuclear”
It was, and the result was a resounding rejection of high cost, high risk, nuclear power.
The election result is clear, as is the wider lesson: When the Coalition pushes nuclear, Australia pushes back.
In 2007 John Howard too nuclear to an election, where he lost government and his own seat.
In 2025 Dutton said nuclear, and Australia said “No” and “goodbye”.
Thanks to those in the community , who identified and acted on the risk of potential nuclear, – thanks for making a positive difference.
Australians have spoken, and it’s now time to draw a line under this unproductive distraction, and get on with real action to meet our nation’s climate and energy challenges.
‘Campaign led by anti-nuclear groups had its intended effect’
FOE Adelaide, 14 May 25
Support for Nuclear Power Collapsed from Feb-April 2025
Polling released by the pro-nuclear group WePlanet Australia reveals that support for nuclear power dropped from 55% in February 2025 to just 42% in April. This is the lowest level in years, WePlanet says, and “a clear sign that a … campaign led by anti-nuclear groups had its intended effect in the lead up to this election.”
The polling was conducted by Essential Research with data provided by Qualtrics. The survey was conducted online from 24th to 27th April and is based on 2,241 participants.
Support for nuclear power increased from 2019 to 2021 (AUKUS-related?). Support didn’t take an immediate fall after the Coalition’s mid-2022 announcement that they would promote the introduction of nuclear power to Australia. Support didn’t take an immediate fall after the Coalition’s June 2024 release of 7 proposed nuclear power reactor sites across 5 states, or the December 2024 release of (highly questionable) cost estimates. But in less than 3 months from Feb. 2025 to late April, net support fell from +21% to -2% with a sharp drop in support of -13% and a sharp increase in opposition of 10%. Support fell from 55% to 42% and opposition increased from 34% to 44%.
The polling data shows that most males support “Australia developing nuclear power plants for the generation of electricity” (51% strongly or somewhat support; 41% strongly or somewhat opposed) but among females, support is more than doubled by opposition (23:47). Nuclear power is not supported by those aged 18-34 (38:48), or those aged 35-54 (41:45) but enjoys more support from those aged 55+ (47:41). Nuclear power is opposed by Greens voters (29:60) and Labor voters (27:63) but supported by Coalition voters (65:24).
If the Coalition sticks with nuclear, the fallout will be toxic.
Rebecca Huntley May 10, 2025, https://www.smh.com.au/national/if-the-coalition-sticks-with-nuclear-the-fallout-will-be-toxic-20250505-p5lwmu.html
Much of the post-election commentary has rightly focused on how the Coalition’s nuclear energy proposal was bad – very bad. It was one of the reasons Peter Dutton lost his seat and for net swings against the Coalition in areas such as Gippsland and the Hunter. Unpopular among women voters, who the Coalition continue to struggle to appeal to, and unpopular among undecided voters.
More importantly, nuclear undermined Peter Dutton’s credibility. After the Voice, the only real policy most voters associated with the opposition leader was nuclear. Once his ill-fated campaign began with a backflip on public servants working from home, the swath of undecided voters got spooked.
No one wants someone who seems highly disorganised to build a nuclear reactor.
If you scrutinise the research numbers, the lack of public support for nuclear was clear; more importantly, support for renewables didn’t dip in the face of the pro-nuclear push. Pursuing nuclear made the Coalition look like it was out of sync with what people really wanted. If it continues to pursue this as a policy, it will be seen as defying the will of the people.
Over the years of Labor’s first term, despite a cost-of-living crisis and well-funded campaigns against renewables online and in traditional media, research showed steady support for solar, wind and batteries. Even the election of Donald “drill-baby-drill” Trump didn’t undermine support.
The online misinformation and disinformation campaigns against renewables certainly ramped up after Albanese was first elected, supported by attacks from Sky News and the Murdoch-owned press.
The Coalition playbook was simple: cast enough disinformation and misinformation across channels to create doubt and antagonism against renewables. It fully believed it could win seats off the back of voter dislike of offshore wind in particular, especially in areas such as the Illawarra. It was in for a surprise.
The outcome of this election shows us a truth the Coalition must accept: amid a cost-of-living crisis, Australians back renewables. In fact, the overall swing towards Labor in seats where anti-offshore wind campaigns were rife was greater than the overall statewide swing. Except for Monash in Victoria, anti-offshore campaigns backfired on the Coalition.
Dutton and his Coalition colleagues in the Nationals severely underestimated the Australian people, particularly those in the regions. Support in proposed nuclear reactor communities, including Gladstone, Bunbury, Hunter and Gippsland, was weak, ranging from 22 to 32 per cent.
A poll published in this masthead in April showed 31 per cent of voters said their biggest hesitation in voting for the Coalition and Dutton was the plan to use nuclear power, up 5 percentage points from two months earlier.
This campaign was fought and won on the cost of living. In the end, Australians believed the right policies on renewables – including more access to home batteries – would save them money now and into the future.
Can you imagine what would happen if all the confected outrage over renewables disappeared, and all that was left was public opinion? The support for renewables is there once you strip away the headlines that seem to suggest otherwise.
So, what does this mean for our newly elected Labor-landslide majority government? And for a Coalition still wrestling with where to go on energy policy? When the word “mandate” gets used in relation to election victories, I have to resist a reflexive eye-roll. Election results don’t necessarily equate to public endorsement of every promise made in the campaign by the winning party. But this result is definitive, and more remarkable considering so many federal elections in the past two decades have been close. The last time there was such a strong message from the electorate was in 2007. In many respects, the Rudd government underestimated the permission the public gave it to act on climate. When Labor stepped away from that commitment, its credibility sagged.
A triumphant Albanese government, going into a second term with more power and confidence, should feel like it can act on the energy transition with a belief that the community will follow, especially if its policies deliver cost savings to households and significant and lasting benefits to the regional communities hosting renewable infrastructure. It’s a green light for further progress, but understanding community sentiment – and responding to it – will be essential to maintaining the permission.
Early signs from the Labor government indicate it knows it can proceed swiftly. On election night, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen said, “In 2022, the Australian people voted to finally act on climate change. After three years of progress, in 2025, they said keep going.”
“Keep going” should be the official government slogan. Fingers crossed that sanity prevails, but early signs from the Coalition seem to indicate more of the same: support for nuclear, which really means less renewable energy.
If the members of the Coalition don’t want to believe the polling data, perhaps they should think about these figures. In the years they have been pursuing their nuclear policy, global solar power has doubled. According to the Clean Energy Council, more than 300,000 small-scale rooftop solar systems were installed across Australia in 2024, bringing the total number to more than 4 million. Utility battery storage more than tripled. And last year, Australia added more renewable capacity to the energy system than the entirety of the Coalition’s nuclear plan.
The transition to renewables is happening, and nuclear is a policy that is too toxic for the electorate and too late to be helpful for emissions.
Any politician who resists that logic will be warming the benches of opposition for some time to come.
Dr Rebecca Huntley is one of Australia’s foremost researchers on social trends and a Fellow of the Research Society of Australia. She is director of research at 89 Degrees East.
Coalition bombs itself with nuclear energy policy
By Dave Sweeney | 12 May 2025
While the Coalition was determined to switch Australia over to nuclear energy, voters had another opinion and overwhelmingly rejected the LNP’s energy policy, writes Dave Sweeney.
WHEN HE UNVEILED the Coalition’s nuclear energy ambitions last June, outgoing Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said:
“I’m very happy for the Election to be a referendum on energy, on nuclear.”
As the adage says, be careful what you wish for. The election result was a resounding rejection of the high-cost, high-risk nuclear option.
The Coalition’s intention to build nuclear reactors at seven sites in regional Australia was the biggest policy difference between the major parties ahead of the Election.
The nuclear push was heavy on headlines and assurances, but very light on details and evidence.
Despite numerous requests, the Coalition’s nuclear promoters failed to visit the reactor sites or answer fundamental questions, including where the required water would come from and where the resultant radioactive waste would go.
Other unanswered questions overflowed the Coalition’s too-hard basket.
What would the impact on employment and output be from Australia’s rapidly growing renewable energy sector? What sort of reactors were planned and how many? What would fill the electricity shortfall between the certain closure of coal and the uncertain start of nuclear? Would taxpayers bear the increased cost of nuclear in our tax bills, our power bills, or both? Who would operate and regulate the Coalition’s nuclear plants?
As the scrutiny and uncertainty grew, so did the community concerns and the considered critiques.
The Climate Change Authority warned the Coalition’s nuclear policy would add huge amounts of extra climate pollution to the atmosphere and make it “virtually impossible” for Australia to reach net zero by 2050.
The interim report by a parliamentary committee inquiring into nuclear energy found – like so many inquiries before it have found – that nuclear energy was not right for Australia.
While Australia’s energy utilities made it clear they did not support or see a future in nuclear, Australia’s insurance sector confirmed that its policies do not cover nuclear accidents.
Shadow climate and energy spokesperson Ted O’Brien might have been convinced nuclear is as safe as houses, but Australian insurance providers did not share that view.
The concern was widespread, but most obvious in Australian women’s scepticism about nuclear. They didn’t want to hear about it and when the issue was raised with Dutton, he didn’t want to talk about it.
When the Coalition pushes nuclear, Australia pushes back. In 2007, John Howard took nuclear to an election where he lost government and his own seat. In 2025, Peter Dutton said nuclear and Australia said no — and goodbye.
Polling by the Liberals Against Nuclear group demonstrated the nuclear policy’s drag on the Coalition’s vote in marginal seats and across the nation, while 46 per cent of voters in Dutton’s electorate of Dickson said they were less likely to vote for Mr Dutton because of the nuclear power policy.
In front of shellshocked Coalition politicians on election night, senior press gallery journalist Mark Riley summed up the Coalition’s problem:
“The party that chose nuclear energy as its policy has exploded in a nuclear bomb set on them by voters tonight.”
The idea of domestic nuclear power is over.
It’s time to draw a line under this unproductive distraction and get on with real action to meet our nation’s climate and energy challenges.
Liberal Senator Maria Kovacic has called on her party to “immediately scrap the nuclear energy plan and back the private market’s investment in renewable energy”.
Her call echoes that of the South Australian Liberals, which have already dropped plans for another inquiry into nuclear power, with State Leader Vincent Tarzia declaring that nuclear has been “comprehensively rejected” by the electorate.
Defeated Tasmanian MP Bridget Archer says the nuclear push was “not the policy position I would have taken” and she would rather “let the market decide”.
The Federal Coalition must ditch any lingering nuclear ambitions and join every other major political player in backing a renewable energy future for our nation.
Australians have overwhelmingly voted for positive solutions, real action and respect — for each other and our environment.
It’s time to stop playing politics with nuclear distractions and delays. It’s time to get on with the clean energy transition, effective climate action and building an energy future that is renewable, not radioactive.
Business as usual: Labor stalls on Defence reform as AUKUS woes grow
Defence spending is lagging, AUKUS is stalling, and systemic mismanagement persists as Labor avoids hard structural reform.
Bernard Keane, May 11, 2025, https://www.themandarin.com.au/291901-business-as-usual-labor-stalls-on-defence-reform-as-aukus-woes-grow/
Having managed to get through an election campaign barely mentioning defence — despite the opposition trying to make it a late-stage vote winner — the newly expanded Labor government still faces a number of big challenges in the defence portfolio, and no easy answers.
The two big ones are well-known: the replacement of the US security guarantee with Trumpian chaos, which means Australia will have to strengthen its defence capability so that it has to rely less on the US, and the profound problems of AUKUS.
Despite some budget sleight of hand purporting to show an acceleration in defence spending, the government remains committed to increasing defence spending to just 2.33% of GDP — not merely well below the Trump administration’s demand for 3%, but below the Coalition’s planned increase to 2.5% and the calls from defence and security experts, as well as Labor luminaries like Kim Beazley, for a significant increase.
But the ability of the Department of Defence to handle any increase in spending — or even competently spend what it currently receives — is openly questioned even by hawks. Average major project slippage time, already alarming when the Coalition was last in power, noticeably deteriorated in Labor’s first term. The response of Defence appeared to try to hide embarrassing data from the Auditor-General under the pretence of national security.
Also characterising Labor’s first term was the admission of failure of departmental process, to the very highest echelons of Defence, in relation to the Hunter-class frigate project and the shocking audit of Defence’s dealings with Thales on munitions manufacturing (the second part of which is yet to arrive from the auditor-general).
With both defence minister Richard Marles’ track record in Labor first term, and his general insouciance toward revelations such as the Thales debacle — which included the revelation that the department had actively misled predecessor ministers — it seems unlikely Defence will face any real pressure to improve the incompetence and, quite possibly, corruption that marks its management of major procurement processes. A defence minister like Andrew Hastie, far more credentialed in military matters than most within the department, could have driven the kind of reform that would have gotten Defence backs up, and led to copious leaking against him, but improved the reliability and integrity of the department’s procurement processes. Instead, we’ll have to hope that a Labor government with a big majority and more confidence will be more willing to take on the fundamental problems in the portfolio.
A similar business-as-usual approach will likely characterise the unfolding disaster that is AUKUS. The grim reality is that US submarine construction rates are slowing, not accelerating as they need to if the US is to provide three Virginia-class nuclear submarines to Australia from 2030. In early April, the US Navy admitted to Congress significant delays in constructing its new Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine, which shares some components with the Virginia class. While the builders of the Virginia-class boats are talking bravely of demand signals and additional investment, the build rate for the subs late last year was barely above half that required by AUKUS.
None of this, apparently, is of interest to the bureaucrats charged with overseeing AUKUS. The Mandarin applied under Freedom of Information laws to the Australian Submarine Agency to see what briefing it was providing to ministers on the problems in submarine construction in the US and the UK. No such documents, came back the answer. Blind faith that the US can double the rate of submarine construction in a couple of years is one thing, but remaining ignorant of how badly off track AUKUS is? That’s quite another.
One of the key problems of the Virginia-class boats for Australia is that they require huge crews — 135 sailors, compared to just 58 for Australia’s current submarines. That brings into focus a persistent and worsening problem — our inability to attract and retain ADF members. Last year the Navy was short around 900 people. The Army was short around 5000; only the RAAF is around its mandated strength. A change of recruitment agency for the ADF proved a disaster, with portfolio minister Matt Keogh expressing his “deep disappointment” with the provider’s “wholly deficient” performance. Critics say the problem is with the ADF itself, which is “too slow and too picky”. The government announced in mid-2024 the brilliant idea of opening up the ADF to personnel from Five Eyes. countries. Only problem is, they’re all suffering the same problems with defence recruitment. In fact, armies, navies and air forces around the world are suffering ongoing recruitment problems and have done so for years — even the People’s Liberation Army is struggling to attract Chinese youth to its ranks.
In each of these areas, clearly, business as usual won’t cut it. But that is what Defence is very good at, and its ministers are very bad at preventing. To prevent it, only structural arrangements that disrupt Defence’s normal processes will achieve results. The royal commission into ADF member and veteran suicide had the right idea — and the government rightly took its lead from the commission in its response. The commission recommended a new independent statutory body to oversee reform across the whole Defence/Veterans Affairs portfolio, not a new area of Defence. And it urged, and the government agreed, that central agencies be charged with implementing the commission’s recommendations: the result was a Prime Minister and Cabinet taskforce to start implementing reforms, with the help of external expertise.
An independent agency, and a PM&C-led implementation taskforce, was what was needed to ensure Defence didn’t simply default back to business as usual when it came to the mental health of its members and veterans. Only the oversight and interference of high-powered external bodies will compel Defence to change its culture.
And it’s the only thing that will enable the government to seriously tackle the biggest challenges in the portfolio over the coming years.
Bernard Keane
Bernard Keane is a columnist for The Mandarin. He was a Canberra press gallery correspondent covering politics, national security and economics, and a public servant and speechwriter in transport and communications. He is co-author of A Short History Of Stupid, which covers the decline of reason and issues with public debate.
Keating savages Albanese and Labor ‘factional lightweights’ after Husic and Dreyfus pushed from cabinet
Tom McIlroy Chief political correspondent, Guardian, 7 May 25
Former prime minister says dumping of Ed Husic was ‘appalling denial’ of his ‘diligence and application’
Former Australian prime minister Paul Keating has savaged Anthony Albanese and “factional lightweights” within the Labor party over moves to dump ministers Ed Husic and Mark Dreyfus from cabinet, calling the decision unfair and disrespectful.
Jostling between right faction MPs in New South Wales and Victoria led to Husic, the industry and science minister, being pushed out of cabinet on Thursday, in a move Labor insiders said was ruthless.
……………………..”As the cabinet’s sole Muslim member, Husic’s expulsion from the ministry proffers contempt for the measured and centrist support provided by the broader Muslim community to the Labor Party at the general election,” Keating said in a statement.
…………………He also criticised the move by Victorian right faction MPs to remove Dreyfus, who has been attorney general since 2022 and held the same role at the end of the Rudd-Gillard government in 2013.
Keating said “factional lightweights” had pushed out Dreyfus, calling him “the cabinet’s most effective and significant Jewish member”………………………………….
A Labor legend, Keating has been a public critic of the Albanese government in the past. He accused Albanese, Richard Marles [above] and the foreign minister, Penny Wong, of abandoning traditional party values over support for the Aukus nuclear submarines agreement.
Keating even suggested last year on the subjects of defence and foreign policy, “this is not a Labor government”.
Albanese’s second cabinet is expected to be sworn in on Tuesday next week. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/may/08/keating-savages-albanese-and-labor-factional-lightweights-after-husic-and-dreyfus-pushed-from-cabinet?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Is nuclear dead? Signs Coalition’s policy isn’t buried despite election loss
The Liberals and Nationals will review their policy platforms as they assess their sweeping election defeat, which resulted in Labor claiming a majority government.
By Cameron Carr, 9 May 25, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/signs-coalition-nuclear-policy-not-buried-despite-election-loss/ideom2e8z
But the Coalition didn’t have much of a choice when it came to election promises around energy, Simpson told SBS News.
“The Coalition had to come to the election saying something about energy policy if they were going to oppose Labor’s policy, and there’s not really that many options,” he said.
“They could have come out and said, ‘We’re going to use gas and or coal for eternity’, but then they would have to abandon their commitment to net zero.”
Fewer moderates in the party
Simpson said there are a couple of reasons the Coalition could come back with a version of the policy for the next election.
“In 2022, they lost all those teal seats. They lost a lot of moderate voices from the Liberal Party. And then that’s just been exacerbated in this recent election,” Simpson said.
“There are very few voices going to be coming from metropolitan urban areas in the Coalition party room. So that’s why I wouldn’t be surprised if, after they do the post-election wash-up and assessment of what went wrong, they come out again with another pro-nuclear policy.”
Simpson said “cultural opposition” is likely another factor, with the Coalition ideologically resistant to a transition to renewable energy.
“They don’t particularly believe in climate change, and it’s certainly not a priority for them,” he said.
While nuclear energy could be a policy the Coalition runs again in 2028, Simpson predicted it would cause “further devastation” within its remaining metropolitan seats and push the Coalition into the “electoral wilderness” for a generation.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 