Nuclear free voices have an important role to play in the days following the federal election
Dave Sweeney, 3 May 25
We need to share the message that the Australian people have clearly rejected the nuclear option and that as a nation it’s time to stop playing politics over nuclear distractions and delays and get on with the clean energy transition, effective climate action and building an energy future that is renewable, not radioactive.
Key messages:
- The Australian people want swift and effective action to address climate and energy challenges. They have rejected domestic nuclear power and that door is now not just closed – it is welded shut.
- Australian’s understand that nuclear is too slow, too risky and too costly – in every way – and have said no. Nuclear is not fit for purpose and is now off the table in Australia.
- The economic, environmental and community advantages of renewables have been embraced by Australians. Today we are nearly halfway there with around 45% of Australia’s electricity coming from renewables. Our job – and the governments mandate – is to now advance the renewable energy future speedily, sensibly and sustainably.
Note * the federal prohibitionS on domestic nuclear energy are outlined in Section 140A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC) and Section 10 of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1999.
Australians’ support for nuclear power ban rises despite Dutton’s best efforts to sell atomic future, survey finds
Only one in two Liberal party voters are in favour of lifting the national ban, according to the National Climate Action Survey.
Graham Readfearn Environment and climate correspondent. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/may/01/australians-support-for-nuclear-power-ban-rises-despite-duttons-best-efforts-to-sell-atomic-future-survey-finds?fbclid=IwY2xjawKCE0ZleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFuSzNVZjdBUVlpaW9NUG41AR7HpN9FsEa4TXvZNvDnumjh3yUamClCltX2hRWi5NHKnYMed5Ju6qvo8drWaQ_aem_ewH1Tx1SHOHJtlwOSZIC2gThu 1 May 2025
Support for Australia’s ongoing ban on nuclear energy has risen sharply since Peter Dutton made the issue a central plank of Coalition energy policy, according to the country’s largest independent survey on climate change and energy.
The survey also found fewer people thought any benefits of nuclear power outweighed the risks compared with the previous year.
Even among people intending to vote Liberal, support for nuclear power was not overwhelming, with only 53% in favour of the party’s intention to lift the national ban if elected.
“These results clearly show that for any political party, proposing nuclear as a solution to Australia’s energy challenges is a very difficult task,” said Assoc Prof Kerrie Foxwell-Norton of Griffith University
Foxwell-Norton said the survey showed “the logic of investment and risk in nuclear power is not passing most Australians’ pub tests”.
The National Climate Action Survey, in its fourth year, is carried out by Griffith University and Monash University. The annual survey will be released in full in September and includes both new respondents and individuals whose views are tracked over time.
About new 2,500 respondents were surveyed in the last quarter of 2023 and again in 2024. The Guardian has previously reported other results from the survey, which showed Australians view solar and wind power more favourably than nuclear.
In 2023, the survey showed 51% of people supported Australia’s ban on nuclear energy. But in 2024 that rose to 59%.
That increase in support coincided with Dutton’s campaign to end the national ban on nuclear energy and build reactors at seven sites around the country.
More than a third of people intending to vote for the Liberal party had either an unfavourable view on nuclear electricity or no view at all, the survey found.
“That’s a lot of supporters who are not backing [the Liberal party’s] central energy policy,” said Foxwell-Norton.https://interactive.guim.co.uk/datawrapper/embed/Pxhwl/2/?dark=false
A majority of Nationals voters (54%) supported keeping the national nuclear energy ban. Only 18% of Labor voters opposed maintaining the ban.
When asked if they held any concerns about personally living within 50km of a proposed nuclear plant, 22% of Liberal voters said they were “extremely concerned” while 22% had no concerns at all.https://interactive.guim.co.uk/datawrapper/embed/pwiWR/1/?dark=false
Elsewhere in the survey, 81% of people supported assisting coal communities in the transition away from fossil fuels, and 84% would back financial incentives for rural landowners to host clean energy.
Foxwell-Norton said: “The oft cited divide between urban centre and regional and rural areas where these coalmines are located is politically expedient, wedge politics. It is politics that overlooks Australians and their relationship between places.
“Regional voters are more supportive of climate action because it is literally their everyday experience.”
This story was amended on 1 May 2025. An earlier version incorrectly said 28% of Liberal voters said they were “extremely concerned”, while 9% had no concerns at all, when asked if they held any concerns about personally living within 50km of a proposed nuclear plant. The correct numbers are 22% and 22% respectively.
Nuclear support falls since becoming Coalition policy
By Caitlin Fitzsimmons, https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/federal-election-2025-live-updates-dutton-pledges-40b-debt-cut-albanese-campaigns-in-perth-20250430-p5lvjh.html?post=p58kxt#p58kxtx
Public support for nuclear power has fallen since Dutton announced his nuclear policy in 2024.
That’s according to the latest National Climate Action Survey, an annual poll of 4000 people run by Monash and Griffith universities.
Key initial findings include:
The proportion of Australians who want to maintain the existing ban on nuclear power rose from 51 per cent in 2023 to 59 per cent in 2024. Those who wanted to ditch the ban fell from 34 to 30 per cent.
Two out of three women want to keep the ban on nuclear, compared with one in two men. Twice as many men as women want to lift the ban – 35.9 versus 18 per cent.
Those who said the risks of nuclear power far outweighed the benefits rose from 21.9 to 26 per cent, and those who said the benefits far outweighed the risks fell from 24.5 to 22 per cent.
Only 11 per cent of respondents would be comfortable with a nuclear power station nearby, and 54.8 per cent would be very or extremely concerned about it. Even fewer (10.8 per cent) said they would be happy to have a coal mine nearby. However, more than half had no concerns about nearby wind farms and almost two-thirds were fine with solar farms.
The survey asks a wide range of questions to gauge attitudes to climate change, extreme weather and different energy options. The full results for 2024 will be out in September.
The methodology is the same each year to ensure the results are comparable over time.
Nuclear power ‘not passing the pub test’, survey authors say
1 May 2025 , By Staff Reporter, https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/nuclear-power-not-passing-the-pub-test-survey-authors-say
Support among Australians for nuclear power has fallen, according to a survey of more than 4,000 respondents conducted by Griffith University’s Climate Action Beacon in partnership with the Monash Climate Change Communication Research Hub.
The National Climate Action Survey was showing that “the logic of investment and risk” didn’t pass most Australians’ pub tests, according to Griffith University Associate Professor Kerrie Foxwell-Norton, a lead collaborator on the survey, which is now in its fourth year.
According to a statement from Monash University, among “key initial findings” were 59 per cent of respondents wanted to keep a ban on nuclear energy in 2024 (up from 51 per cent in 2023), 26 per cent said the risks far outweigh the benefits (up from 21.9 per cent) and over 54.8 per cent “would be very or extremely concerned” if a nuclear power plant was placed near them.
“The survey is a peerless, independent source of information about Australians’ climate actions, attitudes and beliefs as the nation – and the world – embarks upon societal transformations to a sustainable low carbon future,” according to Monash University Professor Libby Lester.”
The survey’s full findings will be released in September. Previous year’s results can be accessed here.
A major point of difference in the current election campaign, which will conclude this weekend, is in the opposition’s pledge to overturn a ban on developing any new nuclear power sites in Australia.
The Coalition plan involves two nuclear reactors beginning operation in the 2030s and, eventually, reactors in each mainland state at the site of retired or retiring coal plants.
Firefighters and nurses call on Coalition to drop nuclear energy plans
Region Canberra, 1 May 2025 | Chris Johnson
Firefighters and healthcare workers have written an open letter to Peter Dutton just a few days out from polling day, asking the Opposition Leader to drop his nuclear energy plan.
Organisations representing more than 350,000 emergency services workers this week called on Mr Dutton to dump the policy in the interests of good health.
The open letter was signed by the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, Emergency Leaders for Climate Action, Climate Action Nurses, Climate and Health Alliance, Doctors for the Environment Australia, and the United Firefighters Union of Australia.
After stressing that doctors, paramedics, nurses, midwives and firefighters are among the hundreds of thousands of people the groups represent, the letter expresses “grave concerns” regarding the potential introduction of nuclear power into Australia.
“As the frontline responders to disasters and emergencies, we are uniquely positioned to assess the risks posed by nuclear energy infrastructure to public safety, worker health, and environmental security,” the letter states.
“Australia’s emergency services do not have the support or resources to respond to nuclear disasters.
“Unlike other nations with established nuclear industries, Australia lacks the necessary infrastructure, resources, and expertise to manage incidents involving nuclear reactors or radioactive waste transportation and storage.
“Furthermore, international examples have shown that populations residing in close proximity to nuclear reactors are at an increased risk of developing severe health complications.
“Existing emergency response and health frameworks would need extensive – and costly – overhauls to address these challenges effectively.
“Nuclear accidents expose emergency responders to ionizing radiation levels far exceeding safe occupational limits.
“International precedents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima demonstrate the devastating health impacts on first responders, including acute radiation sickness and long-term cancer risks.”
The letter then goes on to ask the Coalition to abandon plans for nuclear energy in Australia and prioritise safer energy solutions that “do not endanger” workers or communities, such as solar and wind backed up by storage………………………..
The backlash has been strong enough that Mr Dutton has barely mentioned nuclear energy during the election campaign.
If asked about it, however, he repeats his strong support for the energy plan.
Federal secretary of the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, Annie Butler, said she was concerned about the impact that the proposed nuclear plants would have on the health of all people, but particularly nurses, midwives and carers.
“What we are still yet to see are detailed health risk assessments including how the health of nurses, midwives, carers and the community will be protected,” she said…………………..
Former NSW Fire and Rescue Commissioner Greg Mullins, who went on to found the group Emergency Leaders for Climate Action, said the Coalition’s nuclear scheme “gives rise to far more questions than answers” and in the “unlikely event it is ever actually delivered” it would result in massive amounts of dangerous, additional climate pollution.
“Firefighters and other first responders will be expected to deal with situations for which they have no training, equipment or experience, and like in Chernobyl, possibly lose their lives,” he said.
“Costs for protection from nuclear accidents were not factored into the Coalition’s vague modelling, and nobody should be fooled – this is nothing more than a ruse to continue generating profits for the fossil fuel industry who are funding the Coalition’s election campaign.”
Greg McConville, national secretary of the United Firefighters Union of Australia, said: “Much has been said about the cost of living in this election, but we should not forget the cost of lives………..
The open letter points out that current federal guidelines allow firefighters, emergency services, essential services and health workers to be exposed to radiation doses up to 500 times higher than civilian safety limits during catastrophic events.
“This is an unacceptable risk,” the letter states. https://region.com.au/firefighters-and-nurses-call-on-coalition-to-drop-nuclear-energy-plans/865191/
Dutton promises $40b debt cut as nuclear questions grow
The Age, By Shane Wright and Mike Foley, April 30, 2025
The Coalition will pledge to slash at least $10 billion out of budget deficits over the next four years while bringing down government debt by $40 billion amid suggestions the cost of its signature nuclear power policy will be far more expensive than it has promised.
Shadow treasurer Angus Taylor and finance spokeswoman Jane Hume will on Thursday reveal the Coalition’s full costings, which will confirm cuts to several high-profile Labor programs, including its pledge to wipe $16 billion in student debts.
But even with its promises, both the Coalition and government will go to voters on Saturday with the budget facing deficits over the rest of the decade and gross debt soaring through the $1 trillion mark.
This week, ratings’ agency S&P Global warned Australia’s AAA credit rating could be put at risk if either of the major parties’ election promises resulted in larger structural deficits and more debt than expected.
On Monday, Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Finance Minister Katy Gallagher released the government’s own costings, which showed total budget deficits would be $1.1 billion lower than forecast in the March 25 budget.
Despite the modest improvement, the budget would show cumulative deficits of $150 billion over the next four years.
Taylor and Hume will outline cuts that will bring down the cumulative deficits by a double-digit level, with one of the biggest savings expected to come from axing up to 41,000 public servants based in Canberra. They will be reduced through natural attrition over the next five years.
It will scrap the government’s $14 billion Made in Australia production tax credits for the mining and green hydrogen sector.
The write-off of student debt, affecting both tertiary and vocational education students that the government estimates saves affected people about $5000, is due to start from June 1. But the Coalition would not go ahead with the proposal………………………………………….
Taylor and Hume will promise to bring gross debt down by $40 billion. That will be partly achieved by axing the government’s Rewiring the Nation Fund and stopping the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund.
The Coalition’s costings will have to include the impact of its 25¢-a-litre cut in fuel excise for the next 12 months, worth $6 billion, and its one-off $1200 tax offset to low- and middle-income earners that is estimated to cost $10 billion.
Chalmers accused the Coalition of being sneaky by holding back its costings, including key details about its nuclear policy, until the second-last day of the campaign. Chalmers did not release Labor’s 2022 election costings until the Thursday before polling day.
He said there were already black holes around the Coalition’s mortgage interest deductibility, petrol excise and small-business fringe benefits tax reduction policies while it would attempt to use heroic assumptions around productivity growth to make its numbers add up.
“They want to skate through all the way to the election, or as close as possible, without coming clean. I think that speaks volumes about the approach that they’re taking,” Chalmers said.
A key issue remains the Coalition’s nuclear policy. Peter Dutton has slammed as a lie the government’s claim that it will cost $600 billion, arguing CSIRO research shows it would cost $116 billion to deliver its planned five large-scale and two small modular reactors at seven sites across the country.
The $116 billion figure is based on construction costs for a specific type of reactor – Westinghouse’s AP1000, which is one of the most common and cheapest designs in use around the world.
Coalition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien and Nationals Leader David Littleproud have promised not to use the AP1000 if it would reduce irrigation water to local farmers.
The AP1000 requires significant amounts of water to cool its reactor.
Former Land and Water Australia chief executive Andrew Campbell found there is not enough water at least five of the seven sites nominated by the Coalition for nuclear reactors, in his recent report commissioned by the Liberals Against Nuclear lobby group.
Littleproud and O’Brien have separately raised the prospect of building what are known as dry cool reactors.
However, according to the World Nuclear Association, they cost up to four times more than a typical water-cooled reactor such as the AP1000.
Dry cooled reactors, which use air rather than water to dissipate heat from the plant’s core, are not in commercial use at large-scale nuclear plants.
Dutton confirmed on Wednesday that the Coalition had not finalised which reactors would be used.
“We will take advice from the experts on what is the best fit for those seven sites,” he said.
Littleproud told the National Press Club on April 24 that he had promised to farmers “there is nothing extra coming out of the consumptive pool” of water available to irrigators, and models would be selected based on their water consumption.
“There are other technologies in terms of dry cooling,” he said.
O’Brien in February said, “the nuclear technology for Australia is yet to be selected”………. https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/dutton-promises-40b-debt-cut-as-nuclear-questions-grow-20250430-p5lvei.html?ref=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss_feed
Dutton’s Nuclear Meltdown: A Debate Debacle That Proves He’s Unfit for the Lodge
April 28, 2025 Lachlan McKenzie, Australian Independent Media
The fourth and final leaders’ debate of Australia’s 2025 election was less a clash of titans and more a masterclass in how not to audition for prime minister. Peter Dutton, the Opposition Leader whose campaign has resembled a slow-motion car crash, managed to solidify his reputation as a man allergic to facts, coherence, and basic arithmetic. Meanwhile, Anthony Albanese, while hardly flawless, emerged as the adult in the room – albeit one occasionally caught texting imaginary world leaders. Let’s dissect the carnage.
Nuclear Fantasyland: Dutton’s Reactor Roadshow Goes Nowhere
Dutton’s grand plan to build seven nuclear reactors – a policy so unserious it belongs in a SimCity game – was eviscerated yet again. When pressed on why he hadn’t visited a single proposed reactor site during the campaign, Dutton squirmed like a kid caught fibbing about homework. His excuse? “I’ve visited them before!” Sure, Pete, and I’ve “visited” the gym in my mind while eating Tim Tams. Experts have already torched his nuclear pipe dream as economically unviable and decades too late to address climate change. Albanese, ever the cheeky pragmatist, quipped: “The only gas policy the Coalition has is gaslighting the Australian public.” Mic drop.
Culture Wars: Dutton’s “Welcome to Nowhere” Moment…………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Why Dutton Should Never Be PM: A Snarky Summary
Nuclear Delusions: His energy policy is a fairy tale. Even Simpsons writers would reject it for lacking realism…………………………..If Dutton wants a legacy, he’s welcome to build a nuclear reactor in his backyard. For now, Australia deserves better than a leader whose best idea is reheated Howard-era slogans and a calculator that’s stuck in 1995. https://theaimn.net/duttons-nuclear-meltdown-a-debate-debacle-that-proves-hes-unfit-for-the-lodge/
The Australian Labor Party is No Friend of the Nuclear-Free Cause.
https://theaimn.net/the-australian-labor-party-is-no-friend-of-the-nuclear-free-cause/ 26 Apr 25
I’m thinking that the nuclear lobby loves the ALP even more than it loves the Liberal Coalition opposition party.
Advance Australia, and the U.S-controlled Atlas Network are powerful and well-funded groups dedicated to molding public opinion on behalf of wealthy right-wing groups. They did a fine job in 2023 of destroying Australian support for the 2023 Australian referendum on the indigenous Voice to Parliament.
I was expecting them to pretty much run riot in support of the Liberal Coalition’s plan for a nuclear Australia. That does not seem to have happened. Why not?
Advance “kicked off with outright lies“, but has been rather quiet lately. And the Atlas Network is nowhere in sight, although its modus operandi is secretive anyway, spreading simplistic memes.
My conclusion is that Peter Dutton’s Liberal Coalition campaign is so inept, so incompetent, that it has turned out to be counter-productive to the party’s cause. There’s just so much evidence of this ineptitude – particularly when it comes to the estimated costs of setting up seven nuclear power plants around Australia. The latest of many examinations of these costs is – “Coalition’s nuclear gambit will cost Australia trillions – and permanently gut its industry.” Half-baked plans to keep old coal-power plants running for many years until nuclear is “ready”, no mention of plans for waste disposal, – the tax-payer to cop the whole cost. Even a suave sales magician like Ted O’Brien has not been able to con the Australian public. The party’s incompetence is on show in other ways, too, unconnected to the nuclear issue.
But what of Labor? They have been remarkably quiet on the nuclear issue – focussing on their own rather ha[f-baked plans for housing. It’s all cost-of-living issues – and I don’t deny that this is important. But nuclear rarely gets a mention – except when Labor finds it useful to mention the costs.
It doesn’t look as if Peter Dutton’s Liberal Coalition has a hope in hell of getting a majority win for its nuclear platform.
But does the nuclear lobby really care? I’m afraid not. You see, the Labor Party, supposedly opposed to the nuclear industry, has a long tradition of caving in on nuclear issues. From 1982 – a weak, supposed “no new uranium mines” policy became a “three mines uranium policy” 1984 then a pathetic “no new mines policy” in the 1990s. Backing for South Australia’s uranium mines further weakened Labor anti-nuclear policy.
Over decades, Labor luminary Gareth Evans has been acclaimed for his supposed stance against nuclear weapons. But he’s done a disservice to the nuclear-free movement, in his long-standing position in favour of “the contribution that can be made by nuclear energy capable of providing huge amounts of energy, and just as clean as renewables in its climate impact”. Evans has always been close to the International Atomic Energy Agency, in his complacency that nuclear power has nothing to do with nuclear weapons!
Labor has always been officially opposed to nuclear power, but at the Federal level, and some State levels, there have always been significant Ministers like Bob Hawke, and Martin Ferguson, who pushed for the nuclear industry. To his credit, Anthony Albanese for a long time held out against the nuclear industry. Even up until 2024, he was still trying .
But the crunch had already come – Albanese on Thursday, 16th September 2021 – “We accept that this technology [nuclear-powered submarines ] is now the best option for Australia’s capability.”
Why did Albanese agree to this deal, arranged between the Morrison Liberal government, and the USA and UK? Apparently, he did so, after just a two-hour briefing, with no documents provided, on the previous day. Labor Caucus was presented with it as a fait accompli. No vote was taken.
I can only conclude that Albanese’s decision was based on that time-honored fear of Labor looking “weak on security”.
In one fell swoop, Labor’s anti-nuclear policy was wrecked. The nuclear submarines will mean nuclear reactors on Australia’s coast. The will mean nuclear waste disposal in Australia, including foreign nuclear waste from the second-hand submarines. They will surely eventually mean nuclear weapons, as who can really tell if a nuclear-powered submarines has or has not got nuclear weapons? (The Chinese will be very wary about them.)
Since 2021, Australia’s nuclear submarine arrangement has been largely in the hands of Defence Minister Richard Marles, who worked with that dodgy company PWC to set it up, and who is a committed supporter of Australia’s solidarity with the USA.
March 2023 – Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, US President Joe Biden and UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak unveiled the path to acquiring nuclear-powered submarines.
“In 2024, Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, made undisclosed “political commitments” with its AUKUS partners in an agreement for the transfer of naval nuclear technology to Australia, sparking concerns about the potential for high-level radioactive waste to be stored in the country. “
The global nuclear lobby works across national boundaries to promote its industry. It does well with Russia – as government clamp-down on dissent makes it easier to expand the industry in all its forms, and to market nuclear power to Asian ana African countries.
The nuclear industry is well aware of the problems in maintaining the belief that nuclear is clean, cheap, and climate friendly. But above all, it’s the nuclear-waste problem that its most expensive and difficult obstacle. Here’s where Australia has always looked appealing. All this nonsense about getting small nuclear reactors is just a distraction . The industry knows that small nuclear reactors are fraught with difficulties – too expensive, requiring too much security, public opposition at the local level, still needing too much water……… But to keep the global industry going, a nuclear-waste-welcoming country would be such a boost.
Well, it is early days, even for the prospect of those AUKUS nuclear submarines ever actually arriving. But in the meantime – the whole AUKUS thing has quietly introduced the Australian public to the idea that nuclear submarines are OK, and so are their wastes, and so are USA nuclear weapons based in Australia.
So, really, the Australian Labor Party has done a much better job of promoting the nuclear industry, than the fumbling Liberal Coalition could.
We are fortunate inn Australia to have proportional representation in our election. If you care about keeping Australia nuclear-free, you don’t have to vote for either of the big parties.
Dark Money: Labor and Liberal join forces in attacks on Teals and Greens
by Wendy Bacon and Yaakov Aharon | Apr 22, 2025 https://michaelwest.com.au/labor-and-liberal-powerbrokers-join-to-attack-teals-and-greens/
Teals and Greens are under political attack from a new pro-fossil fuel, pro-Israel astroturfing group, adding to the onslaught by far-right lobbyists Advance Australia. Wendy Bacon and Yaakov Aharon with the story.
On February 12 this year, former prime minister Scott Morrison’s principal private secretary Yaron Finkelstein, and former Labor NSW Treasurer Eric Roozendaal, met in the plush 50 Bridge St offices in the heart of Sydney’s CBD. The powerbrokers were there to discuss election strategies of for astroturfing campaign group Better Australia 2025 Inc.
Finkelstein now runs his own discreet advisory firm Society Advisory, while also a director of the Liberal Party’s primary think-tank Menzies Research Centre. Previously, he worked as head of global campaigns for the conservative lobby firm Crosby Textor (CT), before working for Morrison and as Special Counsel to former NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet.
Roozendaal earned a reputation as a top fundraiser during his term as General Secretary of NSW Labor and a later stint for the Yuhu property developer. He is now a co-convenor of Labor Friends of Israel.
The two strategists have previously served together on the executive of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, where Finkelstein was vice-president (2010-2019) and Roozendaal was later the chair of public affairs (2019-2020).
Better for whom?
Better Australia Chairperson Sophie Calland, a software engineer and active member of the Alexandria Branch of the Labor party attended the meeting. She is a director of Better Australia and carries formal responsibility for electoral campaigns (and partner of Israel agitator Ofir Birenbaum).
Also present was at the meeting was Better Australia 2025 member Alex Polson, a former staffer to retiring Senator Simon Birmingham and CEO of firm DBK Advisory. Other members present included another director Charline Samuell, and her husband, psychiatrist Doron Samuell.
Last week, Doron attracted negative publicity when Liberal campaigners in the electorate of Reid leaked Whatsapp messages where he insisted on referring to Greens as Nazis. “Nazis at Chiswick wharf,” Samuell wrote, alongside a photograph of two Greens volunteers.
The Better Australia group already have experience as astroturfers. Their “Put The Greens Last” campaign was previously directed by Calland and Polson under the entity Better Council Inc. in the NSW Local government elections in September 2024. The Greens lost three councillors in Sydney’s East but maintained five seats on the Inner West Council.
But the group had developed bigger electoral plans. They also registered the name Better NSW in mid-2024. By the time the group met for the first time this year on January 8, their plans to play a role in the Federal election were already well advanced. They voted to change the name Better NSW Inc. to Better Australia 2025 Inc.
Calland and Birenbaum
Group member Ofir Birenbaum joined the January meeting to discuss “potential campaign fundraising materials” and a “pool of national volunteers”. Birenbaum is Calland’s husband and member of the Rosebery Branch of the Labor Party.
But by the time the group met with Finkelstein and Roozendaal in February, Birenbaum was missing. The day before the meeting, Birenbaum’s role in the #UndercoverJew stunt at Cairo Takeaway cafe was sprung.
This incident focused attention on Birenbaum’s track record as an agitator at Pro-Palestine events and as a “close friend” of the extreme-right Australian Jewish Association. The former Instagram influencer has since closed his social media accounts and disappeared from public view.
The minutes of the February meeting lodged with NSW Fair Trading mention a “discussion of potential campaign management candidates; an in-depth presentation and discussion of strategy; a review and amendments of draft campaign fundraising materials”. All of this suggests that consultants had been hired and work was well underway.
The group also voted to change Better Council’s business address and register a national association with ASIC so they could legally campaign at a national level.
On March 4, Calland registered Better Australia as a ‘significant third party’ with the Australian Electoral Commission. This is required for organisations that expect their campaign to cost more than $250,000.
Three weeks later, Prime Minister Albanese called the election, and Better Australia’s federal campaign was off to the races.
Labor or Liberal, it doesn’t matter…
According to its website, Better Australia’s stated goals are non-partisan: they want a majority government, “regardless of which major party is in office”.
“In Australia, past minority governments have seen stalled reforms, frequent leadership changes, and uncertainty that paralysed effective governance.”
No evidence has been provided by either Better Australia’s website or campaigning materials for these statements. In fact, in its short lifetime, the Gillard Labor minority government passed legislation at a record pace.
Instead, it is all about creating fear. A stream of campaigning videos, posts, flyers and placards carrying simple messages tapping into fear, insecurity, distrust and disappointment have appeared on social media and the streets of Sydney in recent weeks.
On Easter Friday, placards warning voters, “Don’t let the Teals trick you” greeted beachgoers arriving at Bondi Beach.
Wentworth independent Allegra Spender wasted no time posting her own video telling voters she was unfazed, and for her electorate to make their own voting choices rather than fall for a crude scare campaign.
Spender is accused of supporting anti-Israel terrorism by voting to reinstate funding for the United Nations aid agency UNRWA. Better Australia warns that billionaires and dark money fund the Teal campaign, alleging average voters will lose their money if Teals are reelected.
It doesn’t matter that most Teal MPs have policies in favour of increasing accountability in government or that no information is provided about who is backing Better Australia.
Anti-Green, too
The anti-Greens angle of Better Australia’s campaign sends a broad message to all electorates to ‘Put the Greens Last’. It aims to starve the Greens of preferences. The campaign message is simple: the Greens are antisemitic, support terrorism, and have abandoned their environmental roots.
It does not matter that calls unite the peaceful Palestine protests for a ceasefire, or that the Greens have never stopped campaigning for the environment and against new fossil fuel projects.
Better Australia promotes itself as a grassroots organisation. In February, Sophie Calland told The Guardian that “Better Australia is led by a broad coalition of Australians who believe that political representation should be based on integrity and action, not extremist or elite activism.”
It has very few members and its operations are marked by secrecy, and voters will have to wait a full year before the AEC registry of political donations reveals Better Australia’s backers.
It fits into a patchwork of organisations aiming to influence voters towards a framework of right-wing values, including
support for the Israel Defence Force, fossil fuel industries, nationalism and anti-immigration and anti-transgender issues.
Advance Australia (not so fair)
Advance is the lead organisation in this space. It campaigns in its own right and also supports other organisations, including Minority Impact Coalition, Queensland Jewish Collective and J-United. Advance claims to have raised $5 million to smash the Greens and a supporter base of more than 245,000. It has received donations up to $500,000 from the Victorian Liberal Party’s holding company, Cormack Foundation.In Melbourne, ex-Labor member for Macnamara, Michael Danby, directs and authorises ‘Macnamara Voters Against Extremism’, which pushes voters to preference either Liberals or Labor first, and the Greens last. Danby has spoken alongside Birenbaum at Together With Israel rallies.
L-R Michael Danby, Ofir Birenbaum, unionist Michael Easson OAM, and Rabbi Ben Elton. Source: Together With Israel Facebook groupThe message of Better Australia – and Better Council before it – mostly aligns with Advance. These campaigns target women aged 35 to 49, who Advance claims are twice as likely to vote for the Greens as men of the same age.
The scare campaign targets female voters with its fear-mongering and Greens MPS, including Australia’s first Muslim Senator Mehreen Faruqi, and independent female MPS with its loathing.
Meanwhile, Advance is funded by mining billionaires and advocates against renewable energy.
Labor standing by in silence
Better Australia is different from Advance, which is targeting Labor because it is an alliance of Zionist Labor and LIberal interests. Calland’s campaign may be effectively contributing to the election of a Dutton government. In the face of what would appear to be betrayal, the NSW Labor Party simply stands by.
The NSW Labor Rules Book (Section A.7c) states that a member may be suspended for “disloyal or unworthy conduct [or] action or conduct contrary to the principles and solidarity of the Party.”
Following MWM’s February exposé of Birenbaum, we sent questions to NSW Labor Head Office, and MPs Tanya Plibersek and Ron Hoenig, without reply. Hoenig is a member of the Parliamentary Friends of Israel and has attended Alexandria Branch meetings with Calland.
MWM asked Plibersek to comment on Birenbaum’s membership of her own Rosebery Branch, and on Birenbaum’s covert filming of Luc Velez, the Greens candidate in Plibersek’s seat of Sydney. Birenbaum shared the video and generated homophobic commentary, but we received no answers to any of our questions.
According to MWM sources, Calland’s involvement in Better Australia and Better Council before that is well known in Inner Sydney Labor circles. Last Tuesday night, she attended an Alexandria Branch meeting that discussed the Federal election. She also attended a meeting of Plibersek’s campaign.
No one raised or asked questions about Calland’s activities. MWM is not aware if NSW Labor has received complaints from any of its members alleging that Calland or Birenbaum has breached the party’s rules.
After all, when top Liberal and Labor strategists walk into a corporate boardroom, there is much to agree on.
It begins with a national campaign to keep the major parties in and independents and Greens out.
MWM has sent questions to Calland, Finkelstein, and Roozendaal, regarding funding and the alliance between Liberal and Labor powerbrokers but we have yet to receive any replies.
Wendy BaconWendy Bacon is an investigative journalist who was the Professor of Journalism at UTS. She worked for Fairfax, Channel Nine and SBS and has published in The Guardian, New Matilda, City Hub and Overland. She has a long history in promoting independent and alternative journalism.
She is a long-term supporter of a peaceful BDS and the Greens.
Yaakov Aharon Yaakov Aharon is a Jewish-Australian living in Wollongong. He enjoys long walks on Wollongong Beach, unimpeded by Port Kembla smoke fumes and AUKUS submarines.
New report: Coalition’s nuclear folly would cost Australian economy at least $4.3 trillion by 2050
Climate Energy Finance Media April 24, 2025, https://theaimn.net/new-report-coalitions-nuclear-folly-would-cost-australian-economy-at-least-4-3-trillion-by-2050/
New analysis by independent public interest think tank Climate Energy Finance (CEF) looks at the economic implications of the nuclear pathway modelled by Frontier Economics for Australia’s energy transition – cited extensively by the Federal Coalition to defend its nuclear plan. The analysis reveals a massive hollowing out of Australian industry, permanently higher total energy costs, uncosted and unabated carbon pollution, and trillions of dollars in lost GDP.
The CEF analysis exposes damaging flow-on costs to the economy for which the Frontier modelling fails to account.
Combined with Frontier’s extreme underestimation of the capital costs of building nuclear reactors, these costs accumulate to $4.3 – 5.2 trillion by 2050, 13-16 times the $331bn price tag for a nuclear Australia assumed by Frontier Economics.
These costs include an estimated:
- $3.5 trillion in cumulative undiscounted lost GDP through to 2050;
- An $111-332bn in nuclear capex costs, which the Frontier modelling erases all but $13.5bn of by failing to both amortise nuclear’s capital investment costs incurred after 2050 and account for inevitable expensive retrofits;
- $234bn in higher fuel costs due to slower electrification meaning consumers and businesses are forced to rely on higher cost fossil fuels for longer;
- $72-720bn in economic damage from up to 2.0bn of additional tonnes of CO2 emissions;
- $100bn in lost export revenue from the aluminium industry alone, likely to collapse under the drastically reduced industrial electricity demand in the nuclear scenario.
Report author Tim Buckley, CEF Director and a former Managing Director of global investment bank Citigroup, said:
“It strains credulity that the Frontier Economics nuclear report is riddled with shortcomings which completely undermine its credibility as a work of serious energy transition analysis, given this is the central modelling being relied upon by the Opposition for its key energy and climate policy offering of the 2025 Federal election.
“The largest share of the Frontier-modelled ‘savings’ in energy transition investment comes at the cost of delivering much weaker outcomes for Australia, including an assumption the Australian economy’s GDP is $300bn lower annually by 2051. This represents an astonishing $3.5 trillion in cumulative GDP forgone.
“This is as weak as the Opposition Leader recently declining to accept the settled climate science because he is ‘not a scientist’.
It beggars belief that this is the best the party representing itself as alternative federal government can come up with, as the nation stands on the brink of an immense generational opportunity to remake itself as a global renewables superpower and green energy trade and export leader in a rapidly decarbonising world.”
Federal election 2025: Economists send open letter opposing Coalition nuclear plan
The economists said all the outlined [clean renewable energy] benefits would be delivered much faster and at a fraction of the cost of nuclear energy.
economists said the $330 billion price tag for the nuclear plan was likely to go much higher and was based on questionable modelling for the coalition.
“Major Australian firms are increasingly signing agreements to purchase electricity from solar and wind farms – recent examples include Rio Tinto, BHP Mitsubishi, Telstra, Woolworths, Coles.”
Lloyd Jones, 20 Apr 2025, https://thenightly.com.au/politics/federal-election-2025/federal-election-2025-economists-send-open-letter-opposing-coalition-nuclear-plan-c-18427749
An open letter from 60 Australian economists has rejected the coalition’s nuclear energy plan, promoting instead the subsidising of household clean energy policies, including incentives for home battery storage.
The organiser of the letter, Gareth Bryant, an associate professor in political economy at the University of Sydney, says the letter is intended as an intervention in the election campaign.
“As economists, energy analysts and policy specialists we strongly support government investment in household clean energy and industrial electrification and not in nuclear energy,” the letter says.
It says simple household clean energy upgrades can deliver immediate cost-of-living benefits and reductions in carbon emissions, and electrification can safeguard the future of industrial jobs and the communities that rely on them.
The economists, from a range of Australian universities and other tertiary institutions, said the construction of nuclear power plants would take at least 15 years at a cost of at least $330 billion.
“It would result in higher household energy costs, drain investment away from renewable energy and energy-intensive manufacturing, and leave the Australian economy precariously over-dependent on increasingly automated mineral extraction,” the letter says.
The economists said they support a nationwide program to upgrade homes and industry with clean renewable energy.
They said the technologies to fund should include large-scale home electrification with smart appliances to deliver bill savings, energy-efficiency upgrades and battery storage, which can save surplus solar for night-time use, and hot water retrofits for more efficient water heating.
“An extensive number of studies have found household electrification and energy upgrades would generate immediate household savings, helping to address cost-of-living pressures,” the letter says.
It says modelling for ACOSS found that with energy efficiency upgrades the average household would save almost $3500 a year.
The economists said their pathway would be anti-inflationary, due to less reliance on volatile international gas markets and it would benefit Australian manufacturing which requires low-cost, secure electricity.
“Major Australian firms are increasingly signing agreements to purchase electricity from solar and wind farms – recent examples include Rio Tinto, BHP Mitsubishi, Telstra, Woolworths, Coles.”
The economists said all the outlined benefits would be delivered much faster and at a fraction of the cost of nuclear energy.
The coalition’s nuclear plan proposes to build seven nuclear reactors with the first of these not operational until 2035.
The coalition plan had a number of flaws, the economists said, including higher household energy costs.
“Independent modelling by the Institute of Energy Economics and Finance found it would increase the electricity bill of an average household by $665 per year.”
The coalition nuclear plan would have detrimental impacts on the Australian economy, the economists said.
It would decrease bank and investor certainty, which will in turn increase the cost of renewable energy.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has defended his nuclear plan, saying it would help reduce carbon emissions and deliver lower cost electricity and gas, and reliable energy.
But the open letter economists said the $330 billion price tag for the plan was likely to go much higher and was based on questionable modelling for the coalition.
Investing in nuclear power would take away money that could be invested in more cost-effective household clean energy, they said.
“Today, with rising geopolitical tensions, trade wars, and accelerating climate breakdown, sovereign capability is even more critical,” the economists said.
“Renewables enable Australia to maintain this capability – nuclear does not.”
Renewable energy investors demand answers on Coalition nuclear plan
the Coalition’s policy costings make clear there has been no analysis of electricity price impacts.
Te Age, By Nick Toscano, April 22, 2025
Renewable energy developers are pressing Opposition Leader Peter Dutton to reveal how much more wind and solar would be allowed to join the electricity grid under his plan to embrace nuclear reactors, amid intensifying doubts about what technology mix the Coalition is targeting.
Energy has become a key battleground issue ahead of the May 3 election, with voters set to decide between the Albanese government’s plan for renewables to make up 82 per cent of the grid by 2030 and the Coalition’s push to abandon that target in favour of building seven nuclear generators across the mainland by 2050.
Dutton says his plan for taxpayers to fund and own nuclear facilities would be cheaper than Labor’s strategy. To support this claim, he cites modelling from Frontier Economics comparing the total cost of the government’s renewables-dominated proposal against the Coalition’s competing vision for a grid powered 37 per cent by nuclear generation and 54 per cent by renewables.
But when quizzed about the impact of slowing the renewable rollout to ensure it did not exceed 54 per cent of the 2050 power mix, opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien insisted there was “no policy we have which is capping any technology”………………………………..
…..representatives for some of Australia’s largest renewable energy companies said O’Brien’s indication that the Coalition did not intend to stick to the technology mix outlined in its own modelling raised serious questions about its case for nuclear.
The Clean Energy Council, an industry group, has demanded urgent clarification on how much additional wind, solar and batteries the Coalition intended to allow beyond 54 per cent.
“There are enormous questions as far as their plans and targets for renewable energy are concerned,” Clean Energy Council chief executive Kane Thornton said.
The Coalition had stated its nuclear plan would significantly reduce the need for “industrial-scale” renewable energy and transmission lines in regional areas, Thornton said.
“Is that no longer the case? Have they changed their policy? And if so, what level of renewable energy deployment will they be targeting?” he asked.
Whether the 54 per cent ceiling on renewables in the Frontier modelling would constitute a “hard and fast cap” is a question that has come up in recent meetings between clean energy developers and the Coalition, according to industry sources, who requested anonymity to discuss private briefings.
The share of electricity generated from sun, wind and water is expanding each year in Australia, already comprising about 40 per cent of the power grid.
“If Peter Dutton is elected, he will find out that the [renewables] market is more mature than he might have anticipated,” one source said. “Even if it wanted to, the industry’s momentum will be difficult to slow.”
As Australia’s ageing coal-fired power plants near the end of their lives, Labor has followed the Australian Energy Market Operator’s advice about the best and lowest-cost path to transition away from coal. Those measures include accelerating the build-out of renewables, backed up by transmission lines, and fast-starting gas-fired turbines and storage assets such as batteries and pumped hydroelectric dams to stash clean energy for when it’s not sunny or windy……………..
Against the urging of the energy industry, the Coalition is promoting a “coal-to-nuclear” transition, which relies on keeping polluting coal-fired power plants in the grid for potentially another 25 years until nuclear facilities are up and running.
The nation’s biggest coal plant operators, including AGL, say their ageing generators cannot continue operating that long without raising the risk of higher prices for consumers and more sudden outages.
Dutton often says his nuclear plan would lead to a 44 per cent reduction in people’s energy bills compared with what they would be under Labor. However, the Coalition’s policy costings make clear there has been no analysis of electricity price impacts.
The Frontier Economics report calculated that the Coalition’s plan for the electricity grid would be 44 per cent cheaper to build and operate than Labor’s – not that power prices would be 44 per cent cheaper.
The CSIRO and the energy market operator have cautioned that nuclear is an expensive power source, and have determined that Australia’s first nuclear plant would cost at least $16 billion and take years longer to build than the Coalition suggests. https://www.theage.com.au/business/companies/renewable-energy-investors-demand-answers-on-coalition-nuclear-plan-20250418-p5lsr4.html
HALF-BAKED!
Tony Webb
New Community Journal, Vol 23 (1) Issue 89 p 37
The Coalition’s plan for our energy future including Nuclear power plants is based on:
Delivering half the electricity anticipated as needed to power homes and industry
and transition to zero carbon emissions.
Assuming cost of building nukes in Australia which has no experience of doing this
will be about half what the most nuke-favourable evidence world-wide from
countries that do have the experience suggests is needed.
Assuming these can be built in less than half the time evidence suggests they take to
build.
Ignoring the evidence that current official radiation-induced cancer-risk-estimates,
on which standards for worker OH&S are based, are less than half what the evidence
from nuclear power plant workers in Europe and North America suggests is the
inevitable and unavoidable reality. Also, ignoring that the cardio-vascular and heart
disease risk from such exposures is double that expected and the childhood
leukaemia risk in the community near these plants has been similarly under-
estimated.
Not to mention that the coalition’s costings ignore the long-term costs of
decommissioning these plants, the management, and (perhaps . . . . Dutton dream
on!) eventually finding a solution for long-term storage (never ‘disposal’) of the
highly radioactive wastes –
Nor to mention the fact that state and federal legislation currently prohibits such
nuclear power plants and is unlikely to be overturned any time in the near future.
And – despite this overwhelming evidence that the whole silly idea is half-baked – in
fact a smokescreen for continuing climate denial and extending use of polluting and
planet life-threatening fossil fuels, inface of this the Coalition doubles down on it
with backing from sections of the media and the fossil fuel lobby.
Victorian Liberal leader distances state party from Peter Dutton’s nuclear proposal: ‘Our focus is gas’
Brad Battin says he had a conversation with the federal opposition leader about the ‘language’ he would use about plans to build a nuclear reactor in eastern Victoria
Benita Kolovos Victorian state correspondent, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/apr/15/victorian-liberal-leader-brad-battin-distances-state-party-from-peter-dutton-nuclear-proposal
The Victorian opposition leader says he discussed the language he would use to distance the state party from the federal Coalition’s campaign to build a nuclear reactor in the Latrobe Valley, telling Peter Dutton “it’s your campaign”.
The Loy Yang coal-fired power station in the Latrobe Valley east of Melbourne is one of seven proposed sites for the federal Coalition’s proposal to build nuclear reactors, the centrepiece energy policy the federal Liberal leader will be taking to the 3 May poll.
But in his first interview with Guardian Australia since becoming the state Liberal leader in December, Brad Battin was clear to separate his team from the proposal, saying: “Our focus is gas, let the feds get on with what they’ve got to get on with.”
He confirmed he had not spoken to anyone in the federal Coalition about its two-and-a-half-year consultation plan for each proposed nuclear site, with the issue “barely raised” at all on the campaign trail.
However, Battin said a conversation had taken place with Dutton and his office about how he would handle questions on the policy.
“I’ve had the conversation with Dutton and his office around what my language is going to be, which is basically saying, ‘We’re happy to have a conversation at the right time. But for us, it’s your campaign at the moment. Our priority, our focus, is on gas,’” he said.
Battin said the federal Coalition would need state parliament to overturn Victoria’s Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act of 1983, which bans the construction and operation of nuclear facilities in the state. Asked if he would be happy with that law being overturned, he said: “I’ll let you know on 4 May.”
Without the support of state parliament, Battin said a Dutton government would face a “difficult process” under section 109 of the constitution, which allows federal law to override state law in the case of conflict.
At his campaign launch on Sunday, Dutton vowed that Australia would become a “nuclear-powered nation” under the Coalition if elected. He said nuclear energy would reduce the need for “sprawling solar and windfarms or laying down 28,000km of transmission lines”.
Battin, however, said most Victorians wanted cheaper energy but “don’t know what the answer to that is yet”.
He said that as existing gas fields in Victoria’s Gippsland and Otway basins continue to deplete, the state should prioritise expanding onshore gas exploration instead.
The comments mark a shift in tone for Battin, who has spent months sticking to a carefully worded position that the Victorian Coalition was open to an “adult conversation” about the policy. He has also repeatedly refused to provide a personal view on nuclear energy.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 