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
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.
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.
The Coalition’s pitch for nuclear power in Australia appears to be struggling for support among some key voters, as the nation prepares to vote on its energy future.
New data from the ABC’s Vote Compass survey shows respondents are divided on nuclear energy, while support for climate change action appears to have softened.
About 47 per cent of ABC Vote Compass respondents said they strongly disagreed or somewhat disagreed with building nuclear power plants, while 38 per cent were somewhat or strongly supportive.
Perth local Gabriel Maddock said she’s made up her mind on nuclear energy, and it is a decision she is making with her young children in mind.
“I don’t think it will be better for the environment, it’s going to be hugely expensive, and I think there’s serious safety risks,” the 35-year-old told the ABC.
ABC Vote Compass found views towards nuclear were split along party lines, while men were more supportive, and those over 65 were the age group most likely to be unsupportive.
According to Vote Compass data, 29 per cent of males strongly disagree with the plan while 41.9 per cent of females disagree.
However, the data shows strong support from those who intend to vote for the Coalition with 44 per cent saying they agree Australia should build nuclear power plants.
This contrasts with those who plan to vote for independents, Labor and the Greens — with just 7, 5, and 4 per cent respectively in strong agreement.
This data comes from a sample of more than 270,000 and has been demographically weighted…………………………………………………………………………………………………
The Coalition is promising by 2050 Australia will get 38 per cent of its power from nuclear energy, 54 per cent from renewables, and 8 per cent from storage and gas.
Meanwhile, Labor plans to have a grid almost totally powered by renewable energy, with the target of reaching 82 per cent of renewable energy by 2030 and fully renewable by 2050.
Ms Maddock is concerned that a switch to nuclear power would lead to more carbon emissions in the shorter term.
“From a climate perspective, it seems like it’s solving one environmental issue with another, because nuclear waste is a very difficult thing to deal with,” she said.
“Why would we do that when we could continue developing our renewable power, something Australia is really in a position to be a leader in.”……………………………………………………………………………
Vote Compass is an educational tool designed to promote electoral literacy and civic engagement. While not a conventional public opinion poll, Vote Compass responses can be analysed using statistical methods similar to those used in polling to try to adjust for sampling bias.
Advance has also focused on the anti-renewables movement, appearing at “energy forums” across the country and events held by groups set up to oppose the roll-out of offshore wind and solar energy.
Spokesperson acknowledges supply of flyers, T-shirts and corflutes to ‘dozens of community groups’ seeking to defeat party’s candidates.
The rightwing advocacy group Advance has acknowledged it is paying for election materials attacking the Greens to be used by third-party groups during the election campaign.
“Advance is working with hundreds of volunteers from dozens of community groups to defeat Greens candidates and we make no apology,” a spokesperson said.
The spokesperson said Advance did not fund groups directly but “we absolutely pay for anti-Greens campaign material to be at the disposal of volunteers”.
“This includes 2m flyers and thousands of T-shirts and corflutes.
“Again, we make no apologies.”
The group’s plan to focus its election campaign on reducing the Greens vote has been no secret. Advance’s executive director, Matthew Sheahan, claimed in a February email to supporters it had already raised $7.6m to “smash the Greens” and about $2m to target Labor. The group has spent more than $200,000 in the past week to promote posts from Facebook pages with names such as “Greens Truth”.
But it has not previously talked publicly about the extent of its support for other groups hostile to the Greens, including those that take exception to the party’s position on the Israel-Gaza war or on renewable energy.
The type of assistance Advance has on offer was revealed by two Jewish advocacy groups at a forum hosted by the Australian Jewish Association (AJA).
Simonne Whine of J-United, which campaigned against the Greens in the recent Prahran byelection in Victoria, said her group had reached out to Advance to get its campaign started.
“They were fantastic, efficient, strategic, well resourced,” she said. “They supplied the flyers, the T-shirts and the corflutes, and shipped everything to Melbourne, helping us hit the ground running.” Advance even paid for a picnic to thank volunteers, Whine said.
During last year’s Queensland state election, the Queensland Jewish Collective (QJC) also focused on the Greens vote in Brisbane seats such as Maiwar and Moggill. One of the group’s directors, Roz Mendelle, told the AJA forum QJC had spoken with Advance after seeing its work during the campaign against the Indigenous voice to parliament.
“When time came … to do something against the Greens here in Brisbane, I knew who to turn to,” Mendelle said, claiming that Advance kept “a healthy distance” while the campaign was under way. According to an event invitation seen by Guardian Australia, QJC held a volunteer event with Advance in February.
Mendelle is a co-director of a new group, Minority Impact Coalition (MIC), which has started a billboard campaign against Labor and the Greens in multiple states. A spokesperson for both groups said neither QJC nor MIC had received materials or funding from Advance.
“We had agreed to share volunteers for the federal election,” she said. “However, our volunteers do not want to work with Advance at the federal election so we have made the decision to do our own groundforce campaign.”
During the AJA briefing, Mendelle showed an image of a billboard paid for by QJC that read: “The Greens: They’ve changed for the worse.”
“This is also inspired by the Advance messaging,” she said. “But from there, we gained our footing, and we decided to just speak our truth.” MIC is using the same mobile billboard provider as Advance in Queensland, NSW and Victoria – STT Advertising.
In return, Advance has also used content from groups such as J-United on social media, sharing pictures of its “local grassroots community members” on its Greens Truth Facebook page.
The likely electoral impact of the anti-Greens strategy remains somewhat elusive. The Greens hold only four seats in the lower house, of which the three they won in Brisbane at the last election appear vulnerable. They have six senators up for re-election. By contrast, six new teal independent MPs were elected in 2022 – if they hold those seats or even increase their numbers, they might be expected to have a greater say in the event of a hung parliament.
“They’ve clearly worked out how to get conservative people fired up enough to throw money at them, and the way to do that is by attacking the Greens,” said Peter Lewis, the executive director of Essential, which is conducting qualitative research for the ALP. “But it’s not going to do anything to help the Liberals win back teal seats.”
The Advance spokesperson said: “Our campaign against the Greens won’t defeat teals because it was never meant to. We have been crystal clear for the past 18 months that our focus is on the Greens this election.”
Sheahan told an Australian Jewish Association forum in 2024: “Our goal is to just expose the Greens policies so that people don’t vote for them … A partial benefit will be that we think that will also reduce the teal vote.” His logic for that claim was unclear.
Anti-renewables
Advance has also focused on the anti-renewables movement, appearing at “energy forums” across the country and events held by groups set up to oppose the roll-out of offshore wind and solar energy.
As Guardian Australia has previously documented, the Facebook account for Advance spokesperson Sandra Bourke is active in dozens of local Facebook groups and pages opposing renewable projects in places such as Lake Borumba and Mount Fox in Queensland, regularly sharing Advance content.
Bourke is a regular speaker at these rallies and events – unusually for the outfit, which generally avoids a public-facing presence.
Grant Piper is the former chair of the National Rational Energy Network (NRen), which brought together community groups opposed to renewable energy projects and hosted events including the Reckless Renewables rally in Canberra last year.
That’s where Piper first met Advance. “We didn’t tie any formal knots, but we could tell we were pushing after the same thing when it comes to renewables,” Piper said.
NRen, which has rebranded as Let’s Rethink Renewables, has had discussions with Advance “all the way through”, he said, although it has remained independent. Bourke, one of NRen’s original members, is now Advance’s spokesperson and the face of its campaign against the Greens.
According to Piper – who appeared in Advance’s anti-renewables Dollars & Destruction video series – the organisation is a natural ally for groups that feel they are mostly excluded from the conversation taking place in parliament and the media.
“Advance is helping get publicity for the grassroots people who have been shut out of everything,” he said.
Others who have teamed up for the Greens Truth campaign include groups that emerged from the anti-lockdown movement, the Freedom party and Reignite Democracy Australia – which makes clear to prospective volunteers that their details will be shared with Advance.
Another NRen member and former One Nation candidate, Katy McCallum, was the MC at a “Goodbye Greens Rally” in Brisbane in late March, where QJC also appeared. Along with other event backers such as the Libertarian candidate Jim Willmott, she thanked Bourke and Advance for their help at the event.
“If our other good mate Sandra Bourke … from Advance hadn’t have jumped on, this would not be happening today,” she said.
Thank you, Peter Garrett, for telling it like it is in his take-down of the Coalition’s ill-conceived, expensive and dangerous nuclear energy policy (“I’ve spent my life fighting nuclear: Here’s what Dutton isn’t telling you about his reactors” March 30). Peter Dutton and his cronies have been allowed to get away with their ridiculous nuclear thought bubble for too long. The Labor Party has been relatively weak in its criticism of what is essentially a “smoke and mirrors” idea to present an alternative to developing renewable energy and to appease the fossil fuel lobby in the bargain. The anti-nuclear energy message needs to be hammered out to all Australians before the election. It is simply a backward and disastrous way to go. Robert Hickey, Green Point
Thank you so much, Peter Garrett, for your insightful article. You have most eloquently summed up my thoughts and fear of Australia going down the rabbit hole of nuclear power. As a kid, I witnessed the psychological stress of the Cold War when it was thought that our world could end any day, with Russia and America in full conflict. It’s why Australians turned its back on nuclear all those years ago. For those of my era that have read Peter’s article, please share it with your children and get them to share among their friends. I’ve yet to see a mushroom cloud of destruction coming from a solar panel or pumped hydro. Ray Gilmour, Blaxland
Peter Garrett’s article makes very convincing points. Another negative aspect of these proposed nuclear reactors is the amount of cooling water which is required for them to function. These hypothetical nuclear reactors would require at least twice as much water as the existing coal-fired power stations use, and yet we live on the driest inhabited continent. These reactors sound like another thought bubble from Mr Dutton. Evan Bailey, Glebe
These communities weren’t asked if they want nuclear reactors in their backyard, and have been told it’s happening whether they like it or not.
“Proposed nuclear communities are asking key questions about nuclear reactors which have not been answered: Where is the water coming from? Where is the waste being stored? Where is the detail?“
These communities weren’t asked if they want nuclear reactors in their backyard, and have been told it’s happening whether they like it or not.
“Proposed nuclear communities are asking key questions about nuclear reactors which have not been answered: Where is the water coming from? Where is the waste being stored? Where is the detail?
Nuclear support has melted down in proposed nuclear communities, new polling released by a not-for-profit organisation working with regional communities for more than a decade, RE-Alliance, revealed today.
Energy attitudes polling by respected research firm 89 Degrees East and commissioned by the Renew Australia for All campaign has revealed support for building nuclear reactors at just:
27% in Gladstone
24% in the rest of Central Queensland
24% in Bunbury
22% in Central West NSW which includes Lithgow
32% in Hunter
31% Gippsland.
Further, the same polling showed just 13% of people polled thought nuclear reactors would bring down their bills the fastest (see table below on original ).
The sample size for the polling was 200 local residents in Gladstone, 151 in Central West NSW, 151 in Bunbury, 145 in Central Queensland excluding Gladstone, 301 in Hunter, 300 in Gippsland. Those polled were asked: How do you feel about developing large-scale nuclear energy infrastructure?
RE-Alliance National Director, Andrew Bray, said he was not surprised support for nuclear had bombed, because community engagement is key.
“RE-Alliance stands by the principle that all energy developments in regional Australia need broad community support – whether it’s for solar, wind, batteries, coal, coal seam gas or nuclear reactors,” Mr Bray said.
“Support for nuclear reactors seems to be melting down in the regions who’ve been told they are hosting them.”
These communities weren’t asked if they want nuclear reactors in their backyard, and have been told it’s happening whether they like it or not. Community engagement is by no means easy, but you’ve got to at least try. It’s no surprise support is so low.
“Proposed nuclear communities are asking key questions about nuclear reactors which have not been answered: Where is the water coming from? Where is the waste being stored? Where is the detail?
“Communities also don’t believe that nuclear power is capable of bringing down their energy bills anytime soon and see renewable energy solutions as a better bet. 72% of people said renewables would bring down bills faster, compared to just 13% who said nuclear.
“We see multiple polls from Porter Novelli, CSIRO, 89 Degrees East and more showing strong support for renewable energy on local farmland, between 66% and 71%. Now the polling shows us support for nuclear reactors in these regions is between 22% and 32%.
“Regional communities have enough uncertainty already. Let’s stop with the whiplash and stay the course on a shift to renewable energy which is already almost halfway done.”
Full results of the two poll questions can be found in the Appendix below (on original).
Note: The difference between a poll and a survey is survey respondents select themselves whereas respondents to a poll are selected by the pollster, weighted so the sample accurately represents the population being sampled, by gender, age group, occupation, and so on.
“Editors and reporters should carefully evaluate whether to report online surveys, having regard to their scope and methodology. They should be cautious of open-access online polls where the sample size and the exact questions asked are unknown and the results have been generated by self-selecting respondents.”
The polling was administered online with recruitment sourced from a consumer opt-in panel provided by Pure Profile, weighted to ensure a representative sample in line with ABS proportions for age, gender and location.
This study was conducted by the research firm 89 Degrees East as part of a larger poll with a total sample size of 5,952 Australians. The sample included a nationally representative poll of 2,014 Australians, with an additional boost sample of 1,900 Australians residing in Renewable Energy Zones (REZs). To ensure robust representation within each REZ, quotas and targeted postcode sampling boosts were applied.
The confidence level of the general population sample is +/- 2.14% at the 95% confidence level. Fieldwork was conducted by 89 Degrees East in March 2025. 89 Degrees East is a member of The Research Society of Australia and the Australian Polling Council.
Dutton has not visited Australia’s only nuclear reactor and has not received a brief from our country’s expert agency on the policy area he was developing. For completeness, I also asked the Government’s nuclear safety regulator, ARPANSA, if Dutton had visited them or sought advice from them. FOI came up with the same answer from them. Nothing at all.
Is Peter Dutton’s proposed ‘rollout’ of modular nuclear reactors real policy or just politics? What research has he done to develop the policy? Not much, it seems. Rex Patrick reports.
In September 2020, the Morrison Government released a Low Emissions Technology Statement that placed Small Modular Reactors (SMR) on a list of watching brief technologies. SMR developments were to be monitored to see if they might play a part in Australia’s energy future.
Consistent with that listing, the Government directed the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) to join an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Coordinated Research Project focused on the Economic Appraisal of SMRs to provide information to assist in evaluating the technology’s economic viability.
ANSTO assembled a team to prepare, among other things, a case study on Australia’s potential to adopt SMR technologies in the future and analyse financing options for the technology. As part of that project, ANSTO even supported a University of Queensland PhD thesis on SMRs.
Flip flop politics
Peter Dutton, a minister in the Government that commissioned the ANSTO work, came out mid-way through 2023 with a proclamation of the Coalition’s plans for Australian to adopt SMRs as a preferred tool in our movement towards net zero carbon emissions.
In doing so Dutton opened himself up to a political battering because of the nascent state of SMR development around the world and huge questions around costs.
As Peter Dutton talks up nuclear power, it is not surprising to see Andrew Liveris shifting his pitch from a ‘gas led recovery’ to a call for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) to be considered for the 2032 Brisbane Olympics. Dutton is engaged in politics, Liveris in fantasy. Rex Patrick reports on the nuclear distraction.]
Undeterred, in early March Dutton doubled down on nuclear power, switching his thinking to large nuclear power plants scattered about the country. As public controversy raged about the new plans, Dutton has started reinjecting SMRs into the total mix.
There are now to be a mix of economic and taxation incentives for the local communities targeted by the Coalition to host a nuclear reactor.
“Somewhere in a Coalition back office, there’s a whiteboard with a map waiting to be unveiled.”
In response to their hip flip to a larger nuclear power plant and his small flop back to SMRs, I thought MWM set out to see if Dutton has visited ANSTO or taken a brief from them in relation to his plans.
After all, there’s no shortage of precedent for parliamentary oppositions to seek factual briefings from government agencies, especially on complex and specialised subjects.
Missing homework
In response to their hip flip to a larger nuclear power plant and his small flop back to SMRs, I thought MWM set out to see if Dutton has visited ANSTO or taken a brief from them in relation to his plans.
After all, there’s no shortage of precedent for parliamentary oppositions to seek factual briefings from government agencies, especially on complex and specialised subjects.
In a recent nuclear estimates brief prepared for the CEO of ANSTO, the first two paragraphs stated:
“As the custodian of Australia’s nuclear expertise and capabilities, ANSTO is well positioned to advise governments, Australian parliaments, and members of the public on the technical aspects of nuclear power and nuclear power developments globally.”
“ANSTO has significant insight into what other countries and jurisdictions are doing around the world in terms of nuclear power.”
As mentioned above, ANSTO was specifically engaged by the former Coalition Government to take a look at SMRs. So, I was left gobsmacked when a Freedom of Information request I made to ANSTO to find out what Dutton’s interactions with ANSTO had been over the past five years returned nil information.
Dutton has not visited Australia’s only nuclear reactor and has not received a brief from our country’s expert agency on the policy area he was developing. In some measure, it explains the flip-flopping and limited detail in many of his announcements.
For completeness, I also asked the Government’s nuclear safety regulator, ARPANSA, if Dutton had visited them or sought advice from them. FOI came up with the same answer from them. Nothing at all.
Politics, not policy
You can’t develop policy just by chin-wagging at party room meetings and with briefs from vested business interests. That’s not how it works. You have to get independent and expert advice, and in the case of nuclear matters, a vital place to get that advice in Australia is ANSTO and ARPANSA.
So, just what policy work has Dutton done? In large part, he appears completely dependent on the Google skills of his little-known Climate Change and Energy spokesperson, Ted O’Brien.
With a background in marketing, O’Brien has no ministerial experience, so the practicalities of major project implementation may be quite novel for him. He did once chair a parliamentary committee inquiry into nuclear energy, but as so often is the case, the research there was largely done by the committee secretariat, with O’Brien just adding a thin layer of pro-nuclear evangelism on the top.
It’s pretty safe to say that, in the absence of comprehensive briefs from and engagement with Australia’s leading experts, Dutton is not engaging in serious policy development. Rather it’s a manoeuvre to achieve political differentiation and keep the anti-renewals, climate-change-denying core of his Coalition happy.
Dutton’s approach to policy development, in this instance, says just as much about him as it does about his nuclear plans.
Rex Patrick is a former Senator for South Australia and earlier a submariner in the armed forces. Best known as an anti-corruption and transparency crusader, Rex is running for the Senate on the Lambie Network ticket next year – www.transparencywarrior.com.au.
The Electrical Trades Union is targeting Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan with a $2 million ad campaign focusing on key federal electorates, including the opposition leader’s own seat of Dickson in Queensland.
Running under the slogan “Dutton’s Nuclear Plan: Why?”, the campaign seeks to deliver a powerful message through TV, radio, and digital platforms.
Featuring electricians, farmers, and policy experts, the ads question what the union says are “serious flaws in the nuclear plan around cost, timelines, and value for money”.
“The campaign highlights nuclear power’s enormous water consumption, which is 1.4 times greater than coal, a point that will resonate strongly in water-stressed areas like Western Australia,” ETU national secretary Michael Wright says.
Wright says the campaign will make voters aware of the costs, “impractical timelines, and job-killing consequences of Peter Dutton’s nuclear energy proposal”.
“Peter Dutton’s nuclear proposals are an expensive, impractical fantasy,” he says.
“Australia needs a new generation to keep the lights on today, in 2025. A nuclear power plan for 2045 is worse than useless – it is killing energy workers’ jobs. With 40% of the grid already powered by renewables and batteries, ETU members are building the energy transition today.
“Every day that Dutton pushes his nuclear fantasy for the 2050s is a day spent destroying and delaying real jobs and projects in 2025. Dutton’s plan would cost $600 billion, take more than 20 years to get off the ground, and provide only four percent of our energy needs.
“This isn’t a plan—it’s a delay tactic that puts thousands of jobs and the nation’s energy security at risk.”
Dutton last year announced he will go to the upcoming federal election promising to build seven nuclear power stations. He has promised the first sites could be operational between 2035 and 2037, years earlier than what the CSIRO and other experts believe is feasible.
Australia will head to the polls on 3 May for the federal election.
Today’s voter has it tough, especially younger Australians who get much of their information from apps. It’s daunting to sort fact from fiction in the Wild West world of online media, where hidden agendas and speculative opinion are rife. All the more so when a party’s policy only truly makes sense if viewed through a wider lens.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s promise to build seven small-scale nuclear reactors, ostensibly to help meet future energy needs while keeping carbon emissions at bay, therefore needs to be seen for what it really is: a staggeringly bad idea, a stunt and a con. It is a backdoor attempt to pander to the fossil-fuel lobby – and under the electoral spotlight, more people will figure that out.
Younger voters understandably won’t know that a generation their age once packed the Sidney Myer Music Bowl with Midnight Oil, INXS and other friends to “Stop the Drop”. They won’t remember our Nuclear Disarmament Party campaign, which won Senate seats in Western Australia and NSW in the ’80s. They can’t know what it was like to grow up during the Cold War era or live through horrific meltdowns at the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear power plants, which were also “completely safe” until the day that they weren’t. But generations Y and Z can still smell a rotten idea when they give it a good sniff.
One example is the fanciful assumption that nuclear plants could be built in 12 years. Twenty years would be more likely – if they are built at all. Cost overruns and safety issues are equally certain. And the carbon consequences of prolonging our old coal-fired power generators are dire.
This deceptive proposal has all the Trumpian hallmarks: a quasi policy announcement intended to serve sectional interests – in this case, fossil-fuel conglomerates – while simultaneously serving up a cartoon enemy as ideological whipping boy, namely renewable energy.
Australia has abundant sunlight, plenty of wind, plus lots of pumped hydro resources that can all be converted by increasingly efficient technologies. Stored batteries are ramping up, too. The butterfly has emerged from the chrysalis and taken to the skies – the renewable energy transition is well under way. Construction costs will keep coming down. Supply will keep going up. The future is already here.
By wrenching the country off this course, Dutton’s plan would leave old, dirty, coal-fired power stations staggering on at increasing risk of breakdown, putting off the day of reckoning when we finally stop polluting and heating our world and get on with using affordable, reliable energy that does not cause more climate chaos.
What possible reason is there for Australia to embark on building a completely new, expensive energy infrastructure we don’t need and which, incidentally, is already illegal in states where the reactors are meant to go?
Nuclear energy features eye-watering costs, which history repeatedly shows blow out. It features risks associated with managing radioactive waste for tens of thousands of years. It is also a massive safety risk from both accidents and attacks.
To cap the charade, this policy comes from the parties that supposedly champion free enterprise and want to reduce government spending, yet the hundreds of billions of dollars needed to fund the Coalition’s nuclear plan are to be borne by all of us, the taxpayer. Go figure!
A ‘non-partisan’ pro-nuclear lobby group has ramped up its spending ahead of the federal election — but has not declared what spending is on ‘electoral matters’.
Australia’s election regulator has reminded a Nuclear for Australia-affiliated group of its legal obligations, as the pro-nuclear lobby group spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to support a policy promoted by the Coalition.
In the past week, “Mums for Nuclear” ran more than $16,000 of Facebook and Instagram advertisements, in addition to a newspaper advertisement in The Age. None featured electoral authorisations, although the digital advertisements were classified as pertaining to “social issues, elections or politics” on Meta’s platform.
The group is an offshoot of Nuclear for Australia (NfA), a purportedly “nonpartisan” group started by then 16-year-old Will Shackel in 2022. Last year, Crikey reported that the group’s website listed Liberal Party-linked “digital political strategist” James Flynn as an author on some of its content. Flynn had also liked the group’s tweets on his personal account and criticised Labor’s energy policy on Sky News.
Nuclear for Australia did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
Since then, there have been other connections between NfA and Liberal politicians. Tony Irwin, one of its “expert working group” members, appeared at an August Liberal Party state fundraising event. Lenka Kollar, who featured in Mums for Nuclear’s newspaper advertisement and is also on NfA’s expert group, leads a firm that reportedly ran a “grassroots community engagement program” for shadow minister for climate change, energy, energy affordability and reliability Ted O’Brien.
In the lead-up to the federal election, NfA has emerged as one of the loudest advocacy groups on energy and climate policy, kicking off a blitz of advertising. In the past 90 days, the group has spent more than $156,575 on Meta ads on its account (out of $195,002 spent since it started). In January, the group paid for Miss America 2023, Grace Stanke, to come to Australia and do a publicity tour promoting nuclear energy. The campaign was promoted by PR agency Markson Sparks!’ Max Markson.
The group says it received charity status in March 2024 and that, up to that point, its primary funding was from patron Dick Smith, “who covered establishment legal fees and our founder’s trip to COP28”. In March this year, Smith claimed he had donated “more than $80,000” to the group and previously said in July 2024 that it was “more than $100,000”.
Since NfA received charity status, it has accepted donations from the public. Shackel says the group does not “accept funds from any political party, nor any special interest group, including the nuclear industry, including any think tanks”.
A financial statement filed with the charity regulator states that the group received $211,832 in donations and bequests between October 31, 2023, and June 30, 2024. In that time, the group spent $125,489 on “other expenses/payment”, which does not include employee salaries or payments.
However, the group did not file an AEC third-party return for this period. According to the AEC, any group that spent more than $12,400 on “electoral expenditure” in the 2023-24 financial year would be required to disclose its expenditure and donors. Whether NfA would qualify is unclear. The group has an electoral authorisation on its website and social media accounts.
Out of the $125,000 the group spent that year, it’s unknown how much — if any — is considered “electoral expenditure”. The AEC defines this as expenses with the dominant purpose of creating and communicating electoral matters to influence the way electors vote in a federal election. Complicating this further, charities like NfA are allowed to advocate on policy issues but can be deregistered for promoting or opposing a party or candidate.
The AEC can investigate and warn groups it suspects have not correctly authorised communications about an electoral matter. An AEC spokesperson did not disclose whether it considered Mums for Nuclear’s advertisement to be on an electoral matter, only that it had communicated with the group.
“The AEC is addressing disclosure and authorisations considerations directly with the entity Mums for Nuclear. Should this entity be required to register as a significant third party or an associated entity, they will appear on the AEC’s Transparency Register,” they said.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has been interrupted by an anti-nuclear protester representing Rising Tide during his first official campaign event in Brisbane.
Peter Dutton has been heckled by a protester just over an hour after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese endured a similar incident in a chaotic start to the first full day of the election campaign for both parties.
The Opposition Leader visited the XXXX brewery in Brisbane on Saturday in his first official campaign event, where he was interrupted by a protester purportedly representing environmental group Rising Tide.
A woman held up a sign that read: “No new gas or nuclear” with “Rising Tide” scribbled underneath as she shouted towards Mr Dutton. Footage showed the woman emerge right next to Mr Dutton wearing a hi-vis vest appearing to blend in with the media in the brewery.
“Why are you lying to the Australian people about the cost of nuclear and gas,” she asked.
“It’s going to cook the country, it’s going to cook our country,” she continued as security began to eject her from the premises.”….
“Industry experts have already agreed your plan’s not going to work. Why are you lying to the Australian people?” she said.
A Rising Tide statement revealed Natalie Lindner was the woman who carried out the protest, in the fifth incident where the group has interrupted a politician’s event in the past fortnight.
It follows the disruptions of Angus Taylor’s press conference, Mr Dutton’s speech to the Lowy Institute, Jim Chalmers’ pre-budget speech and a Liberal Party fundraiser.
Ms Lindner made comment in the statement, claiming Mr Dutton’s nuclear scheme “will actively worsen the cost of living and climate crisis”.
Sky News Political Reporter Cameron Reddin asked Mr Dutton whether the protests would change how he would campaign over the next five weeks.
“While there’s plenty of cash being splashed on gas, no dollars are set aside for nuclear. Is this a genuine policy, or was it always just a ploy for more coal and gas?
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s budget reply details the Liberal-National Party’s polluting policies on energy and climate change:
$0 for nuclear begs the question: is the party now walking away from their highly controversial energy scheme?
A whopping $1.3 billion in handouts for multinational gas corporations during a cost-of-living crisis
Zero mention of climate change, net zero or escalating costs of disasters is a head-in-the-sand approach to Australians suffering from worsening climate disasters
The Federal Opposition’s policies put more Australians in the crosshairs of escalating climate-fuelled disasters, the Climate Council summed up in response to tonight’s budget reply.
Their policies help the polluting gas industry with handouts and promises to wave through more projects. It continues their poor track record on climate change with more of the same: more excuses, more delays, and more harmful climate pollution from coal and gas. The Coalition still has no credible plan to deal with climate change, or replace our ageing coal generators.
Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie said; “While Australians are struggling in a cost-of-living crisis, the Liberal-National Coalition is focused on handing out $1.3 billion to the gas industry, and waving through their polluting projects. This tramples all over the progress we’re making to cut climate pollution and protect our environment. It’s reckless and destructive.
“While there’s plenty of cash being splashed on gas, no dollars are set aside for nuclear. Is this a genuine policy, or was it always just a ploy for more coal and gas?
“Combine their expensive nuclear scheme with bucketloads of gas, and you have a climate disaster that locks in at least two billion more tonnes of climate pollution from coal and gas.
“They still have no plan to cut climate pollution. They’re wilfully risking our kids’ future by kicking the climate can decades down the road. With coal-fired power stations on the way out, and the climate crisis accelerating, we need energy solutions for today. More renewable energy and storage is the fastest way to get power bills under control, the quickest way to replace coal as it retires, and the only way to secure a safer future for our kids and our communities.”
Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor has repeatedly refused to directly answer questions around the cost of the Coalition’s nuclear policy, in a confusing pre-budget interview on the Opposition’s flagship policies.
Appearing on ABC’s Insiders on Sunday, Mr Taylor was repeatedly questioned by host David Speers on the cost of the Coalition’s plan to build seven state-owned reactors by 2050, with the first two reactors set to come online by 2035.
Despite the Opposition releasing its costing policies conducted by Frontier Economics in December, which said the Coalition’s energy plan would cost $331bn, Mr Taylor repeatedly avoided giving a figure.
Instead he stuck to the Coalition’s attack lines, stating: “44 per cent less than the alternative (Labor’s plan)”.
“I’m just asking what it’s going to cost Australia to build nuclear power?” said Speers, for asked Mr Taylor for the costing details 14 times.
Sharing multiple variations of the same answer during the three-minute grilling, Mr Taylor responded with: “44 per cent less than the alternative,” before comparing the costings between the two policies.
The Frontier modelling suggested the total cost of Labor’s policy, which includes its renewables rollout, transmission lines and gas would cost about $642bn to 2050, figures Labor has rejected.
Unions will spend more than $2 million on an anti-nuclear energy campaign targeting the Coalition in key electorates ahead of the federal election, including Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s own marginal Queensland seat.
The Electrical Trades Union is leading the campaign, involving television, FM radio and digital ads, with $1.5 million funding and is backed by the Maritime Union of Australia and the plumbers’ union, which are spending $400,000 and $200,000, respectively.
It will target a dozen Liberal and Labor seats in play across the east coast, including Hunter, Reid and Banks in NSW – the latter held by opposition foreign affairs spokesman David Coleman – and McEwen, Hawke, Dunkley and Bruce in Victoria.
In Queensland, the ads will focus on Capricornia, held by Liberal MP Michelle Landry, the inner-Brisbane seat of Bonner held by Liberal MP Ross Vasta, the regional seat of Flynn held by Nationals MP Colin Boyce, Labor’s working-class Brisbane seat of Blair, and Dutton’s seat, Dickson, which he holds by a margin of 1.7 per cent.
This is not a fear campaign’
The unions will also campaign in Moore in Western Australia, which the Liberals held by less than 1 per cent in the 2022 election. Electrician turned lawyer and ETU member Tom French is challenging for the seat on behalf of Labor after Liberal MP Ian Goodenough was ousted in pre-selection last year.
ETU national secretary Michael Wright, whose union holds a historic opposition to nuclear, said the ads ask: “How does a nuclear reactor built in 2045 keep the lights on in 2025?”
“Nuclear is too little energy for too much money coming too late,” he said. “This is not a fear campaign. It’s grounded in science and where this country is. If you can engage people with the facts you don’t need to scare people. Nuclear just doesn’t make sense.”
Plumbing and Pipe Trades Employees Union national secretary Earl Setches said Dutton was peddling a “nuclear fantasy”.
“We will not support a plan that costs out at, best guess, $600 billion to power only 4 per cent of the grid and will take over 20 years to become reality,” he said.
“Australian workers need a real secure plan for their future and this nuclear scheme will not provide that security. It will, in fact, kill jobs.”
MUA national secretary Paddy Crumlin said maritime workers were already working on offshore energy projects that promised jobs for “generations of Australian seafarers and wharfies”.
“A sudden shift to nuclear energy will bring that work to a standstill,” he warned.
Building trust in renewables
Dutton has said “nuclear energy will set us up for the next century” and criticised Labor’s early scare campaign as “childish” and “embarrassing”.
However, the advertisements, which run the slogan “Dutton’s Nuclear Plan: Why?” and feature experts, electricians and farmers, avoid the memes of three-eyed fish initially shared by Labor MPs when the opposition leader announced his plans……………………..
In WA, the union campaign would focus on water concerns in the state by emphasising that nuclear power consumes about 1.4 times more water than coal to produce the same amount of electricity.
The Coalition must provide immediate and detailed answers about its nuclear energy policy after Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor failed to confirm even basic costs.
Australians for Affordable Energy is calling for clearer policy and direct answers from the Coalition, with households deserving transparency on a policy that could reshape the nation’s energy mix and increase household bills.
“The continued failure to provide clear details on the costs, timelines and locations of the proposed nuclear rollout is unacceptable,” AFAE spokesperson Jo Dodds said.
“Australians are already doing it tough with soaring power prices and cost-of-living pressures. They deserve to know how much this nuclear plan will cost them – not just vague promises and evasive responses.”
Mr Taylor on Sunday repeatedly deflected when asked for key details on the financial impact of the Coalition’s nuclear proposal.
“Energy policy is not a guessing game,” Ms Dodds said.
“Before the Coalition asks Australians to sign up to nuclear power, they need to come forward with detailed and credible answers. Australians expect honesty and transparency from our political leaders, especially when it comes to something as critical as energy security and affordability.
“This nuclear plan remains a risky and uncertain proposition for Australian households and businesses.”
AFAE welcomes the Federal Government’s announcement of additional power bill relief, but it is only a temporary fix to a deeper affordability crisis.
“Relief will always be welcomed by struggling households, but these rebates are a band-aid on a long-term problem,” Ms Dodds said.
“What Australians really need is a comprehensive, sustainable energy policy that lowers prices over the long term, not short-term handouts to mask rising costs.”
The Liberal Party’s conspicuous silence on nuclear energy in its advertising confirms the policy does not have internal party support, is electoral poison and must be dumped.
The Liberal Party’s conspicuous silence on nuclear energy in its advertising confirms the policy does not have internal party support, is electoral poison and must be dumped.
An analysis of Meta’s advertising library published today in the Nine newspapers reveals the Liberal Party has not used the word “nuclear” in any of its 24 paid social media advertisements currently running, having last funded promotion of its nuclear power policy in November 2024. Additionally, it was revealed earlier this week that only nine of the Coalition’s candidates for the upcoming election are promoting nuclear energy on their campaign websites.
“The Liberal Party’s actions speak louder than words,” said Andrew Gregson, spokesperson for Liberals Against Nuclear. “They avoid mentioning nuclear in their advertising because they know voters don’t want it. If the party leadership knows this policy is unpopular enough to hide from voters, they should abandon it so they can win the election and put Peter Dutton in the Lodge.
Recent Resolve Political Monitor polling shows just 21 percent of voters favor government subsidies for nuclear energy.
“The party’s silence on nuclear in its advertising suggests internal polling matches what we’re seeing publicly – nuclear is a losing proposition. People just don’t want to be lumbered with public debt and massive government intrusion.”
Liberals Against Nuclear is calling on party leadership to return to the winning formula that has historically delivered electoral success for the Liberal Party: lower taxes and strong borders.
“The Liberal Party knows how to win elections – by focusing on economic management through tax relief for hardworking Australians and ensuring our national security through strong border protection,” Gregson said.
“The absence of nuclear policy from almost all candidate websites says loudly what no one wants to say out loud – candidates know it’s either electoral poison in their electorates or, more likely, they realise the building and running seven government-owned nuclear plants is a terrible policy that contradicts core liberal values. Building a massive socialist project will force them to raise taxes, grow the debt, and have government running an enterprise that belongs in the private sector. It’s a bit awkward when your signature policy – nuclear – is the one policy you’re trying to avoid. The simple answer is to dump it “Voters are desperate for immediate relief on power bills, not a $600 billion nuclear scheme that delivers nothing for decades. The Liberal Party should focus on immediate tax relief for struggling families and businesses while developing practical energy solutions that align with liberal values of smaller government and free markets.
“If the Liberal Party leadership feels they have to hide this policy in their advertising, they should take the next logical step and formally abandon it before it costs them the election.”Media contacts:
Antinuclear 