If a journalist’s basic job is to report the news and assess the veracity of facts and claims, then the journalists reporting Peter Dutton’s nuclear dream as if it’s a real policy should reconsider their professional calling. They’re not fit to cover the local flower show, let alone federal politics.
Dutton’s press conference yesterday purported to announce “details” of his “plan” to build seven nuclear power plants across Australia. It provided none of these things. He named seven supposed sites and said that the Australian government would own the theoretical nuclear power plants.
Two of them would be built by 2035, apparently, although the AFR’s Phil Coorey promptly reported this on X as “Seven nuclear plants operating from 2035”. Simon Benson at The Australian was immediately proclaiming Dutton had “reshaped the election and the path to net zero” with his bold plan, with News Corp colleagues already touting “growing optimism in the Coalition ranks” due to the opposition leader’s “nuclear-framed energy and climate policy”. The ABC news homepage reported that “Nuclear power plants would be built at seven locations in five states under the opposition’s nuclear policy, opposition leader Peter Dutton has confirmed.” Will they really? Has he really?
Dutton’s press conference was farcical. He provided no costings, no plan for the nuclear waste involved, no detail on what specific type of nuclear reactors would be built, nor how much power they would generate, nor how they will be budgeted or financed. His team hasn’t done any community consultations in the areas named, and would need to change a raft of laws and regulations to begin planning these mythical reactors. Environmental approvals? What are they? Dutton acknowledged that the states’ cooperation would be required, yet leaders in key states including Victoria, New South Wales, Western Australia and Queensland immediately came out against his plan.
Dutton proposes “small modular reactors” for Australia. Fun fact: no small modular reactors currently operate commercially anywhere in the world. Only two currently exist — in China and Russia. The latter took two decades to construct, and neither are prototypes for more models because there is no current market for such things. They’re even more expensive than conventional nuclear reactors. Is Dutton planning to source nuclear tech from China or Russia?
Even conventional nuclear power, on best current estimates, costs between four and six times solar and wind power. Have these journalists had some kind of collective seizure that makes them suddenly believe in expensive energy, in “picking winners”, in giant, open-ended public spending on unproven technology, on unlegislated white-rabbit schemes requiring (but not having) broad public and political support? Or is now not a good time to mention these objections?
The sites Dutton named would need to be acquired, in some cases from private companies, and in others from planned or existing ventures. The man who isn’t even in government is going to oversee the introduction of an entirely new industry in Australia, create the (as yet non-existent) local professional expertise, then contract secure and competent construction companies, consult with the community and other stakeholders, finance, legislate, build and operate new plants within 10 and a half years. (For what it’s worth, the CSIRO estimates that nuclear couldn’t be deployed before 2040.)
In its recent nine years of government, the Coalition couldn’t even build the carparks it promised, let alone complex projects like fast rail or Snowy 2.0. If News Corp journalists in particular were honest, they’d hound Dutton more than they ever hounded Kevin Rudd over the NBN, which was the picture of fiscal rectitude in comparison. They won’t, of course.
Here are some questions that Dutton must be asked, and must answer, if he’s to be taken seriously: How would his government overcome the state bans on nuclear power? How would he get Senate support for legislative change, given it’s been almost two decades since the Coalition had Senate control, and the Greens, Labor and most independents don’t support nuclear? What does the staged timeline look like? What will the reactors cost? Where will the money come from? Who would buy more expensive power anyway? Who will insure such a venture? How can a decades-long project be responsibly mounted without bipartisan support — or does he expect the Coalition to be in power from next year until beyond 2040? How can he seriously argue that it’s irresponsible to have even short-term climate targets, and then go all-in on an uncosted nuclear fantasy?
Apart from anything else, why would a government “cap” investment in renewables (as the Coalition promised this week) while spending vastly more on something unproven, unsafe, uninsurable and toxic? Why would a nation already blessed with cheap, sustainable renewable energy sources embark on something so ludicrous?
We won’t, of course, and that’s the nub of the issue.
These nuclear plants will never be built, and everyone knows it. The point of the exercise is for Dutton to present himself as a man with a “strong plan”, a “visionary policy” to talk about so he can avoid the fact that he has no climate policy — and in fact not many policies at all. (The other tragic aspect of this game is that Labor will see a policy platform even worse than its own pro-gas vandalism, and present itself as the responsible option by comparison. Thankfully the public has better climate choices.)
There is no nuclear plan, and journalists reporting the announcement seriously are participants in the charade. They’re misleading the public.
How can journalists do a better job covering Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
