Antinuclear

Nationals MPs ‘100 per cent’ back nuclear being kept as Coalition dissects loss

ABC News, By political reporter Jake Evans. 5 May 25

In short:

The Coalition will dissect its election loss, with one frontbencher saying the party’s nuclear policy must be part of that assessment.

Two Nationals MPs have urged that it be kept, suggesting it was not to blame for the loss.

What’s next?

The Liberal and National parties will review their election loss once seats are finalised.

Two Nationals MPs have publicly backed the Coalition sticking with its nuclear plan, with leader David Littleproud claiming the party had a “flawless campaign” even though its senior partner was routed.

Queenslanders Colin Boyce and Michelle Landry have called for the Coalition’s signature energy policy to be re-endorsed when the parties review an election that saw the Liberal Party lose 14 seats at current count and be all but exiled from Australia’s cities.

However, Nationals leader David Littleproud, who celebrated on election night that his party had run a “flawless campaign”, gave an early signal yesterday that the Nationals would not pin the blame on a promise to build seven nuclear power stations.

“We’re going to work through all of those, I don’t think nuclear was the reason we lost this,” he told Sky News.

Mr Littleproud suffered a personal swing against him in Maranoa, one of the seven proposed nuclear sites.

There was also a swing against the National and Liberal candidates in Hunter, another proposed site, but elsewhere the results were mixed, such as in O’Connor, where the Nationals had a large swing towards them away from Liberal incumbent Rick Wilson.

Flynn MP Colin Boyce, one of the fiercest advocates for nuclear power in the Coalition, said nuclear was a good policy that was not successfully argued.

“One hundred per cent, I would like to see it hung onto,” Mr Boyce said.

“I think during the cycle, there was not enough detail, certainly not enough detail around the reality of costings, timeframes, you take water, for example — the Labor party put out some rhetoric that there was not enough water, well I would argue there are other options to cool a nuclear facility.

“It’s nonsense, some of these arguments, but none of them were articulated well enough.”

Mr Boyce said the policy was not discussed a great deal during the campaign, but said it was “arguable” whether an anti-nuclear campaign run by Labor was what undid Liberal leader Peter Dutton………………….

Capricornia MP Michelle Landry also urged that the nuclear policy be kept.

“I had fairly positive feedback on it, I don’t think we sold it well enough … and we also should have knocked on the head the lies of the unions and the Labor Party,” Ms Landry told ABC Capricornia.

…………………………… Climate policy contentions within Coalition

The Nationals have led the charge for years on nuclear, eventually convincing its senior Liberal partner to adopt a nuclear strategy in the last term.

Debate over energy and cutting carbon emissions in the electricity sector has caused ructions within the Coalition for generations, and been instrumental in the toppling of former leaders.

The parties were finally united under former prime minister Scott Morrison, who won an agreement with then-Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce to formally sign up to the Paris climate agreement to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

But determining the pathway to achieve that has continued to pose a challenge within the Coalition — Nationals senator Matt Canavan suggested late last year that the nuclear policy was introduced as a political fix to those arguments, and that the Coalition was “not serious” about it as a solution.

The Liberal Party is still picking through the wreckage of Saturday night and will not begin to review the loss until after seats are finalised.

But Tasmanian frontbencher Jonno Duniam said when that time comes, nuclear must be part of a complete review.

“It’s probably going to be one of those things that’s on the table for discussion,” Senator Duniam said.

A year ago, when defeated Liberal leader Peter Dutton announced the Coalition’s plan for seven nuclear power plants, the opposition leader said he would be happy to contest a federal election on the policy.

“I’m very happy for the election to be a referendum on energy, on nuclear, on power prices, on lights going out,” Mr Dutton said in June. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-05/nationals-keep-nuclear-coalition-review-election-2025-loss/105253116

May 5, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Nuclear fallout: Coalition’s nuclear energy policy proved toxic to voters

SMH, By Mike Foley,  May 5, 2025 

The Coalition’s nuclear energy policy was toxic to voters, delivering big swings against Peter Dutton’s candidates in electorates chosen to host reactors, while support for Labor grew in many places it chose for massive offshore wind farms.

Dutton’s energy policy was built on opposing Labor’s “reckless race to renewables”, which the Coalition claimed was trashing farmland in the path of transmission lines and solar panels, in favour of a nuclear and gas-led strategy.

“I’m very happy for the election to be a referendum on energy, on nuclear,” Dutton said on June 19, when he announced his planned nuclear plant locations.

Dutton had not visited any of his proposed nuclear sites by the time the election was over, while the party quietened its advertising for the policy.

In the NSW electorate of Hunter, which borders where the Coalition planned to build a reactor on the site of the old Liddell coal plant, Labor MP Dan Repacholi significantly increased his support.

Repacholi’s first-preference votes jumped from 39 per cent in 2022 to 44 per cent in 2025, while the Nationals fell from 27 per cent to 18 per cent.

The central west NSW seat of Calare was also slated for a reactor near Lithgow, and the election turned into a three-cornered contest between the pro-nuclear Nationals, their former member-turned-nuclear sceptic independent Andrew Gee, and nuclear opponent Kate Hook……………………………

south of the border in the electorate of Gippsland, where the Coalition planned to build a reactor at the Loy Yang A coal plant, Nationals MP Darren Chester defied the trend with his primary vote falling from 55.2 per cent in 2022 to 53.5 per cent in 2025.

The figures could change as the Australian Electoral Commission continues to tally ballots.

The nuclear vote also appears to have inflicted pain on Coalition seats where no nuclear plants were planned.

Chief architect and advocate for the policy, energy spokesman Ted O’Brien, the Liberal National Party MP for Fairfax in Queensland, dropped to 38 per cent on the primary vote from 44 per cent in 2022, while Labor ticked up 2 per cent and anti-nuclear independent candidate Francine Wiig captured 12 per cent.

Nationals leader David Littleproud’s primary vote dropped from 54 per cent in 2022 to 52 per cent.

On the day after the election, Littleproud said nuclear was not responsible for the Coalition’s historic loss.

“I think this was a schmick campaign by Labor destroying Peter Dutton’s character,” he told Sky News.

Dutton vigorously campaigned against wind farms, visiting electorates planned for development and claiming the industry would harm whales, commercial fishing and seascape views.

The Coalition pledged to ban four of Labor’s six offshore wind zones, and Dutton campaigned on this commitment in Paterson, north of Sydney, as well as Whitlam and Cunningham south of Sydney, and Forrest south of Perth.

In Forrest, the Liberal vote fell from 43 per cent in 2022 to 31.5 per cent. First-time independent candidate Sue Chapman, who backed assessment of offshore wind in the area “based on the evidence and [would] aim to bring the community along”, picked up 18.5 per cent of primary votes.

In Cunningham, Wollongong Labor MP Alison Byrnes increased her primary vote from 40.5 per cent in 2022 to 45 per cent.

Down the road in Shellharbour, part of the electorate of Whitlam, Labor’s Carol Berry maintained the 38 per cent primary vote from the past election (although, in terms of ……..the two-candidate preferred vote, Whitlam recorded a 2 per cent swing against Labor)……….https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/nuclear-fallout-coalition-s-energy-policy-proved-toxic-to-voters-20250504-p5lwcp.html

May 5, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Pie in the sky? After the Coalition’s stinging loss, nuclear should be dead. Here’s why it might live on.

Adam Simpson, Senior Lecturer, International Studies, University of South Australia, 5 May 25, https://theconversation.com/pie-in-the-sky-after-the-coalitions-stinging-loss-nuclear-should-be-dead-heres-why-it-might-live-on-255866

When the Coalition launched its nuclear plan last year, Labor was on the nose and early polls showed some support for the policy. But then the wheels fell off.

Nuclear didn’t stack up on cost or timeframe. Early support fell away. By the time of the election, support for maintaining Australia’s ban on nuclear power had increased from 51% to 59%.

When Opposition leader Peter Dutton gave his budget reply speech in late March, he barely mentioned the nuclear policy – instead promoting gas and attacking renewables.

After Saturday’s Coalition rout, the prospect of nuclear power in Australia should be dead and buried. But that’s not guaranteed. The National Party strongly backs nuclear power.

With metropolitan Liberals sceptical of nuclear reduced to a rump, the Nationals and regional Liberals will gain influence within the Coalition. If conservative Nationals prevail, we may well see the nuclear policy survive the election post-mortem and be resurrected for the next election.

Why did the Coalition back nuclear?

In the 1990s, the Coalition introduced laws banning nuclear power in Australia. But interest in the technology has never gone away. Australia has abundant uranium, and nuclear power appeals to some demographics.

Politically, Dutton’s choice to back nuclear power was pragmatic. There were real tensions inside the Coalition on climate action. Nuclear power seemed to offer a way past these tensions, as a zero emissions energy source providing baseload power. It would also have meant slowing the renewable rollout and building more gas power plants to cover the gap left by retiring coal.

It appears the nuclear policy wasn’t a Dutton priority. Nationals leader David Littleproud says he and the Nationals pushed the Coalition to adopt nuclear in exchange for continued support for the 2050 net zero target. After Saturday’s wipeout in Liberal-held metropolitan seats, the Nationals will have a stronger hand.

On Sky News yesterday, Littleproud claimed nuclear was not the reason for the Coalition’s loss. National MPs are still backing nuclear.

If the Nationals stick to their guns, we may see the Coalition bring nuclear to the next election.

Three-year federal terms make it difficult for new governments to embark on long term plans. Nuclear energy would take at least 15 years to come online. The Coalition’s last realistic opportunity to go nuclear would have been back in 2007, when there was renewed interest in the technology.

At that time, renewables were quite expensive. But solar, wind and batteries now cost much less, while nuclear was already expensive and has remained so.

Government tenders for renewable and storage projects tend to be massively oversubscribed, with far more interest than opportunities. By contrast, nuclear doesn’t have business backing. The Australian Industry Group has argued the Coalition’s nuclear policy was 20 years too late. This business reticence explains the Coalition’s proposal to build the nuclear reactors with public money.

This year, clean energy levels in Australia’s main grid will reach 44–46%, according to the Clean Energy Regulator. With a strong pipeline of new projects, that could reach 60% by the next election. It’s hard to see what role nuclear could have in any future grid.

Nuclear isn’t quite dead

In contrast to intermittent renewables, nuclear offers reliable zero emissions baseload power. If you talk to nuclear backers, you’ll likely hear a variant of this sentence.

But there’s “no going back” to the old baseload model where large, inflexible coal plants churned out power, as the head of the Australian Energy Market Operator Daniel Westerman pointed out last week. That’s because renewables are the cheapest energy source. Powering Australia on 100% renewables is possible with enough battery storage or pumped hydro to compensate for the solar duck curve, in which solar power drops off in the evening.

So why does nuclear have a hold on the Coalition’s imagination, even as it faces its largest crisis since Menzies founded the Liberal Party?

One likely reason is cultural opposition to renewables. This is especially evident among prominent Nationals such as Littleproud, Matt Canavan and Barnaby Joyce. As the thinking presumably goes, if “latte-sipping greens” in inner city areas back renewables, genuine country Australians should naturally oppose them.

It is, of course, not that simple. Renewables are often just as popular in the bush as in the cities. A Lowy Institute poll found almost two-thirds of regional respondents supported the government’s 82% renewable target for 2030. Farmers hosting solar panels or wind turbines energy generation on their properties see them as guaranteed income even if livestock or grains are having a bad year.

The problem for the Nationals and for the Coalition more broadly is that nuclear just isn’t that popular. Early support for the policy was soft. It melted away as authoritative sources such as the CSIRO pointed to the exorbitant cost and long timeframe to build reactors from scratch.

Labor, with a resounding majority, is likely to accelerate the shift to clean energy. While the urban-rural political divide will still play out in Coalition opposition to clean energy, Labor’s large electoral mandate and dominance in the populous cities will encourage it to press ahead.

As the surviving members of the Coalition lick their wounds and begin to figure out how they did so badly, we can expect to see nuclear up for discussion. But given the new power of the Nationals and regional Liberals in the party room, we may not have seen the last of nuclear fantasies in Australia.

May 5, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Coalition’s nuclear power policy must be nuked

5 May 25

The Don’t Nuke the Climate initiative has today welcomed the clear rejection of nuclear power by Australian voters. Seven News political editor Mark Riley summed up the Coalition’s problem: “The party that chose nuclear energy as its policy has exploded in a nuclear bomb set on them by voters tonight.”

The idea of domestic nuclear power is over. The Coalition now must ditch any lingering nuclear ambitions and all political parties need to move swiftly to advance a renewable energy future for our nation.

Dave Sweeney, nuclear free campaigner with the Australian Conservation Foundation, said:

“Australians have rejected nuclear power and that door is now not just closed, it is welded shut. Nuclear power is too slow, too risky and too costly – in every way.

“The economic, environmental and community advantages of renewables have been embraced by Australians. Today we are nearly half way there with around 45% of Australia’s electricity coming from renewables. Our job – and the governments mandate ‒ is to speedily, sensibly and sustainably advance the renewable energy future.

“It’s time to stop playing politics with nuclear distractions and delays. It’s time to get on with the clean energy transition, effective climate action and building an energy future that is renewable, not radioactive.”

Dr. Jim Green, national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth, said:

“There, is overwhelming evidence that the Coalition lost votes and seats because of its nuclear power policy.

“Polling by the Liberals Against Nuclear group demonstrated the nuclear policy’s drag on the Coalition’s vote in marginal seats and across the nation.

“Forty-six percent of voters in Peter Dutton’s electorate of Dickson said they were less likely to vote for Mr. Dutton because of the nuclear power policy.

“In 2007, the Coalition took a pro-nuclear power policy to the election but suffered a large swing against it and lost the election with leader John Howard losing his seat. Yesterday, the Coalition suffered a large swing against it and lost the election with leader Peter Dutton losing his seat.

“The lesson should be clear. The Coalition’s nuclear power policy must be buried once and for all.”

May 5, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Coalition power plan ‘nuked’ at poll: climate groups

Labor’s landslide election victory shows Australians have overwhelmingly rejected the coalition’s nuclear energy plan, climate action groups say.

Labor on Saturday night stormed to victory, winning a swathe of seats across multiple states and unseating Opposition Leader Peter Dutton in his own electorate.

The coalition’s nuclear plan proposed to build seven reactors across Australia with the first of these not operational until 2035 at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars……………………………. (Subscribers only) https://aapnews.aap.com.au/news/coalition-power-plan-nuked-at-poll-climate-groups

May 5, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Coalition to put nuclear plan on the chopping block

Ryan Cropp Energy and climate reporter, May 4, 2025, https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/coalition-to-put-nuclear-plan-on-the-chopping-block-20250504-p5lwcw

The Coalition’s nuclear energy policy looks set to be one of the first casualties of the party’s monumental election defeat on Saturday after opposition MPs declined to publicly back the controversial strategy.

Dutton had used the policy as a means of aligning the party behind a commitment to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050, but several senior Liberals on Sunday indicated the party would need to consider dumping the plan if it were to find a path back to government.

Dutton announced the proposal to build seven government-owned nuclear reactors in July last year, but on Saturday the plan proved to be a major electoral liability, particularly in key metropolitan seats.

When asked whether the Coalition should dump its nuclear plans, Liberal frontbencher Keith Wolahan said Australians had sent a message and the party needed to listen.

“It wouldn’t be fair on me to dissect that particular policy, but everything should be on the table and that should be analysed,” Wolahan told the ABC.

“We have to listen to Australians. They have sent us a message. And our first task is to hear it. And that often takes time.”

Wolahan is one of several Liberal moderates who have lost their seats. Others include Michael Sukkar in Deakin and David Coleman in Banks.

Policy toxic in inner urban seats

The lack of public support for the plan was exploited mercilessly by Labor throughout the campaign. The government repeatedly claimed the plants would cost up to $600 billion to build and would need to be paid for by cuts to key social services.

Dutton failed to visit a single one of his proposed nuclear sites during the campaign.

The policy proved particularly toxic in inner-urban and suburban seats in Sydney and Melbourne, where Liberal challengers failed to make any inroads against climate-friendly teal independents.

Six candidates backed by Simon Holmes a Court’s Climate 200 crowdfunding organisation in 2022 were re-elected, while teal challenger Nicolette Boele looks set to take the blue-ribbon Liberal seat of Bradfield.

Dutton’s loss in his own seat of Dickson was based, in part, on preference flows from Climate 200-backed independent Ellie Smith, which went to Labor’s Ali France. Elsewhere, lower-profile Climate 200 candidates in seats such as Sturt in South Australia, Casey in Victoria and Forrest in WA peeled votes off Liberals and put Labor MPs in winning or winnable positions.

Nationals leader David Littleproud denied that nuclear was to blame for the Coalition’s election defeat, but did not rule out dumping the policy.

“I don’t think nuclear was the reason we lost. I think this was a schmick campaign by Labor destroying Peter Dutton,” Littleproud told Sky News. “We’ll sit down, obviously, after this and work through the policy positions and make sure they’re fit for purpose and fit for the future.”

The Coalition’s attempt to exploit local opposition to offshore wind farms also appears to have backfired, with two-party preferred swings to Labor in key coastal seats including Paterson, Gilmore and Whitlam in NSW and Forrest in WA. In Wannon in Victoria, however, Liberal frontbencher and potential leadership contender Dan Tehan saw off Climate 200 contender Alex Dyson, in part off the back of strong opposition to a proposed offshore wind farm in the region.

Asked on Saturday if the Coalition should stick with nuclear power, Tehan also left the door open to axe the policy.

“What we need is a proper review – a proper review of all the policies, a proper review of how we campaigned. And we have to do that over a period of time,” he said. “Everything should be part of the review.”

In the western NSW electorate of Calare, where the Coalition’s proposed Mount Piper nuclear plant was to be built, former Nationals MP Andrew Gee won his seat running as an independent. Gee has expressed scepticism about nuclear, which one poll suggested had as little as 22 per cent support in the region.

Ryan Cropp is an energy and climate reporter at The Australian Financial Review based in the Canberra bureau.

May 4, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment