Patricia Karvelas: Peter Dutton’s nuclear energy plan breaks all the rules of policy making. Is it genius or career self-destruction?

By Q+A and RN Breakfast host Patricia Karvelas,  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-20/nuclear-dutton-coalition-unanswered-questions-beak-rules/104000664

Peter Dutton has broken every single rule when it comes to unveiling radical policy as opposition leader, tearing up the script and gambling with his party’s chances at the next election with his nuclear policy.

If he can pull it off and convince enough voters that his blueprint for an Australian nuclear future is feasible and preferable, it will be the most unorthodox approach we’ve seen from an opposition leader in recent memory. It will rewrite our understanding of how modern politics works and reshape Australia.

Dutton has just placed a target on his back — and many of his state and even federal colleagues are scratching their heads trying to work out what the larger strategy here is. Is it cunning genius or the longest political self-destruction?

But what will it cost?

For months, journalists have been inquiring about when and why the nuclear policy announcement was being delayed. Senior Coalition figures informed me that the opposition — knowing full well that Labor and others would throw everything at pulling it apart — were doing their most comprehensive piece of work to deliver a “bulletproof” policy that could withstand dissection and sustained attack.

Yet when Dutton and his colleagues stood up before the media yesterday, they outlined a policy with many questions unanswered — including, most crucially, the actual cost of their nuclear rollout. The Coalition says it will reveal the cost down the track. But to leave unanswered such a crucial detail when the entire debate is centred around the cost of energy leaves the policy vulnerable and impossible to critically assess.

It is stunning and unheard-of for a mainstream political party to put forward such a significant and consequential policy blueprint without the numbers attached.

One senior Liberal suggested the delay in releasing the figures was to rob Labor of the ability to question the economic basis of the policy — you can’t pull and pick apart numbers that haven’t been provided. Conventional politics would involve the unveiling of modelling and robust independent accounting to explain the cost for taxpayers.

Tony Barry, the director of political research organisation RedBridge Research and a former Liberal Party strategist, says the way the policy had been announced makes the Coalition vulnerable to criticism.

“It isn’t so much ‘bulletproof’ but rather wearing a high-vis vest with a bullseye on it,” Barry told me. “The Coalition has to try and sell its product while Labor only has to convince people not to buy it, and in that scenario, Labor has the easier job.”

There are hurdles to jump

Among the many hurdles for the Coalition to jump before it can even develop a nuclear site will be the state premiers, who have lined up against this blueprint to establish nuclear power plants at seven locations across the country. Peter Dutton says the states’ concerns were easy to deal with.

“Somebody famously said, ‘I would not stand between the premier and a bucket of money’, and we’ve seen the premiers in different debates before where they’ve been able to negotiate with the Commonwealth and will be able to address those issues,” he says.

A Coalition government would also have to convince federal parliament — the Senate too — to lift restrictions on nuclear power and find a solution for nuclear waste. It would also have to build a nuclear workforce from scratch.

Is it achievable? It would be a big departure from the usual way Australia does business.

And then there’s the question of social license. Communities would need to get on board and provide support to build nuclear facilities in their neighbourhood. The Coalition says polling in some of these seats shows that there is support — even if it’s tight.

A poll released by the Lowy Institute earlier this month of 2,000 voters showed 61 per cent said they supported Australia including nuclear generation in its energy mix. Public opinion towards nuclear power in Australia has shifted over time. A significant minority (37 per cent) “somewhat” or “strongly” oppose it. Those who “strongly support” nuclear power generation (27 per cent) outnumber those who “strongly oppose” it (17 per cent).

But on the question of the rights of communities to raise objections, the Nationals were at odds yesterday.

Nationals leader David Littleproud contradicted his deputy, Perin Davey, who said that, “if a community is absolutely adamant, then we will not proceed”. But the Nationals leader later said Davey’s claim was “not correct”.

“Peter Dutton and David Littleproud, as part of a Coalition government, are prepared to make the tough decisions in the national interest. We will consult, and we will give plenty of notice.”

More unanswered questions

Part of the motivation for this massive climate pivot is the opposition to the rollout of renewables. Given the controversy on poles and wires and their rollout on the basis that some communities don’t want them, it seems a stretch that other communities would be pushed to accept nuclear.

The Coalition is right to observe some questioning of the pace and cost of the renewables rollout. But it’s a big leap to go from detecting softening support for renewables to assuming there will be full-blown support for nuclear in the community.

If we accept that community opposition to the idea of nuclear is softening — although we can’t be sure of how much — then the fight shifts to cost.

Will the Coalition be able to convince the public that nuclear will really give them cheaper bills? On this pivotal question, the evidence has not been provided.