Antinuclear

The paradox of recent politics

Crispin Hull, 2 February 25

A paradoxical realignment is under way in Australian and US politics. 

Until recently, the Republican Party in the US and the Liberal Party in Australia were the parties of business, entrepreneurs, the professions, and the relatively wealthy. And the Democrats and Labor were the parties of the worker. The Democrats and Labor were always wary of new technology because it invariably costs jobs.

It was a fairly straight-forward labour-capital divide.

Then came some big changes: the rise of China; the threat of global heating; the social revolutions relating to identity (race, gender, nationality, and religion); and the collapse of organised labour.

Global heating was seen by Republicans and Liberals as some trendy, leftie anti-capital nonsense. They saw, with some justification, the rise of China as menacing. They attracted working-class votes based on nationalism and opposition to social causes on racial and sexual equality.

Those changes have thrown up some irreconcilable contradictions.

Private-Sector Economic Rationalist Peter Dutton has a plan under one arm to axe 36,000 “Canberra” public servants. Under the other arm Commissar Dutton he has a plan for massive public ownership of the means of energy production and management with seven nuclear power stations – just so his mates can keep up the profitable burning of fossil fuels for a few more years.

No sensible private-sector organisation will go near the nuclear plan, for obvious reasons. Moreover, only a third of federal public servants work in Canberra. But it sounds good to cut “Canberra” public servants. As if they do nothing – aside from, say, running air-traffic control; policing the borders; running Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and the defence forces; doing weather forecasts; and generally making society tick.

It leaves Labor, the party that has usually been unenthusiastic about entrepreneur-driven new technology, embracing and financing private-sector investment in new energy………………………………………………………….

Labor, the party of the environment, has now shelved legislative protection for endangered species and approved dozens of extensions to coal and gas projects while putting its hand on its heart saying it has approved no “new” coal or gas projects.

Despite election promises, Albanese, who “goes after Tories”, has delivered a corruption watchdog that bares its gums in private. And his whistle-blower-protection promises have evaporated. His political finance “reforms” tinker about the edges while continuing to allow big corporations and unions to be puppet-masters.

It is a government that clears the in-tray by moving things into the too-scared basket.

Dutton, meanwhile, the friend of the Australian Jewish Community, cynically weaponises and politicises antisemitic attacks in Australia so he can argue that Albanese is “weak” while stirring up divisions for his own ends. With any luck it will back-fire because the Jewish community is a bit more sophisticated and understanding of the nuances of public policy than the former Queensland policeman.

The attacks, of course, are not coming from racialised Muslims, but far-right, nationalist, self-labelled “Christian” neo-Nazis.

Surely these things mean that Dutton and Albanese have disqualified themselves from leading a majority government. Surely, events of the past three years tell us that a cross-bench holding the balance of power in the House of Representatives will improve government.

If Albanese is Prime Minister, they will demand action on obvious things on pain of being thrown out of office. If Dutton is Prime Minister, they will demand detail, justification, and costings for his nuclear policy or to drop it – again on pain of being removed from office.

How else can the major parties be weaned off the insidious corporate, union, and lobby-group influencers that conspire against the public interest?

The glimmer of hope here is Labor’s massive support of renewable energy. The Australian Energy Market Operator reported this month that coal’s share of electricity generation had fallen below half for the first time. Coal-fired power stations are becoming less reliable and less economic. 

The economics are so obvious that households are taking up solar at an unforeseen rate. And they are telling everyone about their zero power bills. So, it is on an unstoppable roll.  https://www.crispinhull.com.au/2025/02/03/the-paradox-of-recent-politics/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=crispin-hull-column

February 3, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Dutton defends nuclear costings as opponents warn of power bill hit

“Peter Dutton wants to force millions of Australians to switch off the solar they bought, make them pay for more expensive nuclear power, and use their taxes to build nuclear reactors,”

The Age, By Shane Wright, February 2, 2025 

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has claimed his nuclear energy policy would cut power bills by 44 per cent, but analysis by the renewables sector warns it could actually drive up electricity costs by more than $1000 a year for millions of Australians with rooftop solar panels.

Ahead of an election that will be dominated by cost-of-living issues, Dutton said while it would take time for energy prices to fall under his $331 billion plan to build seven government nuclear plants, they would ultimately drive down costs for consumers and business owners.

Modelling commissioned by the Coalition for its plan to build the reactors by the mid-2040s asserts total costs will be 44 per cent lower compared to the mass rollout of renewables. The same modelling did not estimate a reduction in retail power prices.

But Dutton told the ABC’s Insiders program on Sunday it was “economics” that lower construction and production costs would lead to a large drop in prices paid by consumers…………………

The modelling, however, has come under fire for its underlying assumptions, including an effective lid on the amount of renewable energy. Renewable energy under the Coalition’s modelling reaches 54 per cent of the total power market by 2050. By the end of last year, it had already hit 46 per cent.

Research to be released on Monday by the Smart Energy Council warns that millions of rooftop solar systems would have to shut off every day to allow the baseload power generated by nuclear reactors to fit into the grid.

It found that non-solar households could pay an extra $665 a year in power prices, while for those with rooftop solar, the bill shock could be more than $1000. Rooftop solar households were forecast to pay an extra $1262 a year in NSW, $1108 in Victoria and $1419 in south-east Queensland.

The higher costs to the more than 4 million rooftop solar households were in part because they would be blocked from feeding power into the energy market, the council said. As nuclear needed to be run constantly, if there was too much energy in the market, the first to be turned off would be rooftop solar, which was the easiest to prevent competing against nuclear.

Smart Energy Council chief executive John Grimes said every person who had invested in rooftop solar would pay far more for their energy if expensive nuclear power was forced into the grid.

“Peter Dutton wants to force millions of Australians to switch off the solar they bought, make them pay for more expensive nuclear power, and use their taxes to build nuclear reactors,” he said.

“We know that power bills are going to soar for all Australians because Peter Dutton wants to cap cheap, clean renewable energy and substitute it with expensive, unreliable, polluting coal and gas, while we wait a couple of decades to build their nuclear fantasies.”

The battle over electricity prices is part of a broader debate over the size of government, with Dutton accusing Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of overseeing a $347 billion increase in spending and a 36,000 lift in public servants…………………….

Pressed on where he would cut spending, Dutton ruled out an audit but signalled that voters would have to wait until after the election to get final details………

Treasurer Jim Chalmers said part of the increase in spending and public servants included the indexation of the aged pension and extra resources to the Veterans’ Affairs Department, Medicare and to lift housing construction.

He accused Dutton of trying to hide his planned cuts because he knew people would not support them.

“It is extraordinary that he’s saying to the Australian people he wants to cut $350 billion, but they will have to wait until after the election before he would tell them what that is,” he said.https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/dutton-defends-nuclear-costings-as-opponents-warn-of-power-bill-hit-20250202-p5l8wu.html

February 3, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

 Dutton’s nuclear plan requires ‘huge’ new bureaucracy.

“Every single dollar spent on nuclear will come from the taxpayer. So of course, that will lead to a bureaucracy.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has criticised what he calls Labor’s “big government” approach and “wasteful” spending

 https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2025/02/01/exclusive-duttons-nuclear-plan-requires-huge-new-bureaucracy

A “huge” new bureaucracy, numbering thousands of extra public servant positions, would need to be created by the Coalition to establish and support an Australian nuclear power industry, according to the minister for public service, Katy Gallagher.

The proposal for a civil nuclear power program, as described by shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien last year, included “institutional architecture” that he said would entail an expansion of the regulatory agency, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), a new independent nuclear energy coordinating authority and a government business enterprise to be called Affordable Energy Australia.

That architecture raises questions in the midst of the current opposition attacks on the growth and efficiency of the bureaucracy under the Albanese government. The Coalition’s election campaign push to cut government spending, sharpened by the nomination last week of Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price to lead a proposed efficiency department, has focused so far on paring back the public service.

The Coalition’s coal-to-nuclear strategy appears to defy that objective, as it requires building a large department “from scratch”, Gallagher tells The Saturday Paper. “We haven’t run state energy systems for so long,” the minister says. “It would be up there with departments like, you would think, Services Australia. Probably a bit smaller than the NDIA [National Disability Insurance Agency, Defence. It would be thousands of public servants.”

Gallagher likens the bureaucratic infrastructure for a nuclear power industry, which the Coalition has said would be taxpayer funded, to Labor’s creation of the Climate Change Department of more than 2500 staff. She expects more than that would be needed, including outside Canberra, for the Coalition plan to build its proposed seven nuclear power plants across five states.

“It would be planning, construction, safety, getting the skills. I don’t even know how you’re going to get the skills into that,” Gallagher said. “It’d be a lot of travel because you’re all around the country.”

Last year, O’Brien revealed that, under the Coalition’s plan, a coordinating authority would determine how much nuclear power is produced at each of the seven proposed sites before it enters the national energy mix.

“In terms of exactly how many on any plant, we’ll be leaving that to the independent nuclear energy coordinating authority,” he told the ABC’s Insiders last June. “It is right we want multi-unit sites. That’s how to get costs down.”

The shadow minister was not available for an interview. In response to emailed questions, O’Brien did not address the size of a civil nuclear power bureaucracy or the cost of expanding nuclear agencies and creating new ones, but acknowledged that “a highly skilled nuclear workforce will be paramount to ensuring the success of this plan”.

In his response, O’Brien gave more detail about the nuclear program, including outlines of private and public partnerships and a proposition to include the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office (ASNO), which looks after Australia’s international treaty obligations.

“Experience is not cheap, because you’ll have to get it from overseas … we’ll be having to buy that in, at expense. You don’t just train someone up over a two-year period.”

“The ARPANSA legislation will be amended to allow the licensing and regulation of civilian nuclear facilities, including power stations,” the shadow minister said. “ARPANSA will have its resources increased to prepare to license the establishment projects and advice will be sought regarding the merits of regulatory consolidation of ARPANSA and ASNO.

“The independent Nuclear Energy Coordinating Authority will lead community consultation and manage a process to select experienced nuclear companies to partner with Government to deliver these projects.

“Affordable Energy Australia will be financed by the federal government through a combination of debt and equity and, through its partnership arrangements with experienced nuclear companies, will own, develop and operate the establishment projects.”

A former energy adviser to Britain’s Thatcher government says the Coalition is trivialising the bureaucratic support needed for a local nuclear power industry.

Greg Bourne, who is a former president of BP Australasia and is a councillor on the Climate Council, said the experience in the UK showed that the nuclear part of the electricity industry had to be regulated, as “no one commercially wanted it”.

He says established nuclear power countries in comparable democracies such as the United States have very large regulatory organisations rigorously covering issues such as skills, construction, safety, finance and radioactive waste.

“What you would need to do – almost certainly getting the people from overseas, building ARPANSA’s strength – it’s not a trivial act,” Bourne tells The Saturday Paper.

“They will have to build a complete set of public servants, for want of a better word, to be able to advise Department of Energy … on what can be done, what can’t be done, the pace at which it can be done and so on.”

The scale of the Coalition’s nuclear proposal, Bourne says, is obviously a far cry from Australia’s experience with its sole reactor, the 20-megawatt nuclear medical reactor at Lucas Heights in southern Sydney.

“We will have to buy experience. And buying experience is not cheap, because you’ll have to get it from overseas,” he says. “People will be coming in with different models. European models… a number of United States, Canadian models. They’ll all be coming in with different things, but we’ll be having to buy that in, at expense,” he says. “You don’t just train someone up over a two-year period.

“Lucas Heights is a very, very different thing. The people there are good. They understand what they’re doing. I do not think that [the Coalition] will be able to grab the head of the nuclear agency from Lucas Heights, and then that person will have credibility with two gigawatt-size reactors.”

The public service minister suggests that if the nuclear bureaucracy were to be added to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW), not only would the department need to be “a lot larger” but there would likely be “a huge consultant bill”, over decades. “You’d be paying for all of that before anything gets happening.”

The Albanese government, meanwhile, is moving to accelerate household electrification efforts, through a deal with the Senate crossbench to support Labor’s Future Made in Australia legislation. The government aims for 82 per cent of power to be sourced from renewable energy by 2030 – a plan the Coalition has derided as “unrealistic”.

Energy Minister Chris Bowen revealed this week he used ministerial powers at the end of last year to direct the Australian Renewable Energy Agency to consider funding solar panels and home batteries. However, the basis of Labor’s transition plan, Bowen says, is private-sector funded.

“Every single dollar spent on nuclear will come from the taxpayer. So of course, that will lead to a bureaucracy. Our plan is based on private-sector investment. Theirs is based on public investment and a bureaucracy,” the minister tells The Saturday Paper.

He points to the lack of detail in the Coalition’s planning, in contrast with its demands for more detail in the lead-up to the Indigenous Voice to Parliament vote: “They campaigned against an alleged government bureaucracy in the referendum, and they’re proposing at least two new government organisations.”

The Coalition’s plan to build seven nuclear power plants to replace Australia’s ageing coal-fired power stations is backed by a contested set of costings, prepared by Frontier Economics and released late last year, amounting to roughly $300 billion spread over 50 years. The modelling suggests the Coalition plan is $263 billion cheaper than Labor’s renewables proposal, but a wide range of economists have countered that the costings lack crucial information about how the figures were calculated, and are based on a scenario of dramatically lower energy use than is realistic.

The delays in getting the reactors on line have also drawn strong criticism. The opposition insists its plan, under the best-case scenario, would begin producing electricity by 2035, but this is five years earlier than the earliest estimate by the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, and assembling the necessary regulation and skills is a key component of that timeline.

The Coalition’s energy spokesman says the opposition’s civil nuclear policy is well formed and ready to start.

“[T]his policy follows the most comprehensive study ever undertaken by an Opposition, learning from experts in 10 nations about their decarbonisation policies while keeping prices down, the lights on and ensuring energy security,” O’Brien said in his statement.

“Upon entering government, the Coalition will be ready to implement a detailed energy policy immediately, informed by global best practices and established relationships.”

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has criticised what he calls Labor’s “big government” approach and “wasteful” spending that he says has exacerbated inflation in the lead-up to an election that will be heavily focused on the cost of living.

His most cited example is the 36,000 additional Average Staffing Level places in the public service funded by Labor over three budgets.

The opposition leader now has four frontbenchers whose portfolios cover the public service, two of whom are solely tasked with zeroing in on waste and efficiency: Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and James Stevens.

While Dutton isn’t explicitly referencing as its inspiration the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency in the US, he’s elevating the mission within his ranks just as the Trump administration takes over. Australia’s richest person, Gina Rinehart, has long urged the Coalition to emulate the MAGA policy agenda.

“Our argument is to bring that role, that function, into [the Department of the] Prime Minister and Cabinet as a key central agency, and then to have the authority of Prime Minister and Cabinet to run the operation of senior efficiencies achieved across every department of the Commonwealth,” the Coalition leader told reporters in Perth on Tuesday.

“And that’s something that we would take very seriously.”

Dutton says Labor’s spending on public service positions is a question of “priorities”. Speaking to reporters in his electorate of Dickson last weekend, the opposition leader said, “That’s money that we could be spending elsewhere to provide support to people during Labor’s cost-of-living crisis, or into defence or into security and into priorities for Australians otherwise.

“I just don’t think any Australian can say that their lives are simpler or better off today because of the tens of thousands of additional public servants that the prime minister’s employed in Canberra.”

The plans for cuts have been flagged for at least six months.

“The first thing we’ll do is sack those 36,000 public servants in Canberra, that’s $24 billion worth,” Nationals leader David Littleproud told commercial radio station Triple M in August.

The figure for additional public servants equates to 20 per cent of the workforce, a boost that entailed rebuilding positions lost to more expensive outsourced labour. The cost cited by the opposition is over four years.

An audit, ordered by the Albanese government soon after the 2022 election, found that the Coalition government in the 2021-22 financial year alone spent $20.8 billion on almost 54,000 contractors and external providers. The bulk of the external labour was employed in the defence, social services and agriculture portfolios.

The 36,000 figure under the Albanese government, confirmed in federal budget papers, also covers Labor’s moves to rein in Centrelink and other government call centre waiting times, as well as additional staffing to reduce chronic backlogs in claims and visa processing times.

Gallagher, who is also finance minister, accepts that efficiencies remain to be made within government. She adds that $92 billion was saved over the past three Labor budgets and mid-year updates.

“We’ve had over $4 billion saved from not using consultants as much as the former government did,” the senator says.

She says there is an ongoing effort in explaining the worth and work of the public service.

“It’s always up to us to explain what we’re doing and why we’re doing it, but I would say to Peter Dutton, go and speak to a veteran who actually is getting their pension now, who’s getting their appropriate payment. There was a 40-month wait for people to get their pension,” she told reporters last week. “What he wants to pretend is that you don’t need anyone to do these jobs. Two thirds of these jobs are in the regions. They’re in every part of Australia.”

February 2, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment