Trade unions, conservationists, First Nations groups, church congregations and community organisations have launched a coordinated campaign against opposition leader Peter Dutton’s plan for nuclear reactors across Australia.
The Coalition has pledged, if elected, to build seven nuclear reactors to replace retiring or retired coal sites naming Tarong and Callide in Queensland, Liddell and Mount Piper in New South Wales, Port Augusta in South Australia, Loy Yang in Victoria, and Muja in Western Australia.
Forty-one groups have now signed a joint statement that they are “united in our support for real climate action through the clean energy transition and in our opposition to false nuclear promises”.
The statement accused the nuclear industry of “playing a spoiling role” in the transition to renewable energy and of undermining public support for cleaner sources.
“Nuclear power is too slow, costly and inflexible to play any meaningful role in decarbonisation efforts,” the statement said. “Nuclear also brings unique risks and long-lived wastes.
“Given the environmental, economic and human urgency of addressing climate change and advancing the energy transition we must not allow nuclear promotion to cause any further complication or delay.”
The groups join the Seven Regions Nuclear Free alliance, who represent the communities at the seven sites. The alliance is furious the plan will go ahead even if communities reject it, and on Monday said they were “deeply disappointed” that Dutton has not visited the sites to hear from them directly.
An Arabunna man from Port Augusta, Clinton Dadleh, said there were many things they would rather have in the community before a nuclear power station.
“If Mr Dutton came here he’d see a community with lots of ideas for a bright future that doesn’t involve toxic waste,” he said.
At the weekend Dutton was asked why he had visited more than 10 petrol stations but had not visited any of his proposed nuclear sites.
He said he would be “getting out there talking to Australians about our policy” but did not commit to a visit.
While Dutton has confirmed that the Coalition is standing by its nuclear plan, the energy minister, Chris Bowen, labelled it the “silence of the plans” saying Dutton was “desperately trying to hide” the proposal.
The controversial policy has united a wide range of groups.
The Uniting Church Synod of NSW & ACT moderator, the Rev Mata Havea Hiliau, said her congregations wanted energy bill relief and they believed renewables were the fastest way to achieve that while also tackling climate change.
Nuclear was a “disappointing distraction”, she said. “The solutions for the climate crisis are also solutions for the cost of living crisis.
“No one should be left behind.”
Also among the signatories was Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation, a longtime anti-nuclear campaigning organisation that has expressed its concerns about uranium mining in the region and about the ongoing impacts of the Fukushima blast in Japan.
It said the impacts of the nuclear industry “will be felt for generations in every place and amongst all people it touches”.
“This is an industry we never supported in the past and want no part of in the future,” the corporation said.
Conservation groups including Greenpeace Australia Pacific, the Climate Action Network Australia, the Australian Conservation Foundation, Extinction Rebellion and Friends of the Earth signed the statement as well.
Dr Jim Green, a Friends of the Earth nuclear campaigner, said renewables were “demonstrably cheaper, safer, faster and are already powering about 45% of our homes and workplaces”.
“As the coal era ends we don’t have time to waste and we don’t want radioactive waste,” he said.
Unions including the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (WA), and the Electrical Trades Union have also signed the statement.
The ETU is running a campaign claiming it will “kill jobs”, cost $600bn (the Coalition refutes this amount) and is “too little energy for too much money coming too late”.
Guardian Australia has asked the Coalition for comment.
