There was something appropriate about Peter Dutton releasing the costings of his grand vision for nuclear energy on Friday the 13th.
The date is known for bad luck. In Christianity it is associated with the Last Supper, when Judas, the 13th guest, betrayed Jesus, resulting in his crucifixion on Friday.
Will Dutton’s nuclear policies result in his political crucifixion? While the vision is grand, it is also a grand targeting strategy, which usually does not work against opposition.
Just ask Bill Shorten, who found a way to lose the “unlosable” 2019 election by pushing big policy ideas.
Dutton says his nuclear policy will cost $331 billion over the next 25 years. Labor claims the real figure is closer to $600 billion.
Regardless of where the truth lies, Dutton’s policies give Labor something to focus on.
It gives the ALP a tangible reason to mount a negative fear campaign that demonizes the risks associated with electing Dutton as Prime Minister.
For his part, the Opposition Leader is using his nuclear policy to do two things: achieve the promised net zero emissions target already well ahead, and create a safe energy route at a time when many Australians are being asked to switch off their appliances. so that the electricity grid does not break down.
There was something fitting about Peter Dutton releasing the costs of his grand vision for nuclear energy on Friday the 13th, writes political editor Peter van Onselen
With a hot summer predicted ahead of the next federal election, Dutton appears to be banking on energy network issues that will cast doubt on whether renewables can keep the lights on as an alternative to coal.
Of course, this whole debate is more about politics and rhetorical positioning than policy.
Ordinarily, Dutton should have announced plans to properly assess the viability (or otherwise) of a nuclear switch after he wins the next election.
That would have been a responsible course of action, even if it sounds a bit lame.
Political parties need the government apparatus to properly study, budget and plan major policy initiatives, such as the country’s nuclear weapons policy.
But Dutton wants to come on strong and build on the contrast of how voters see him compared to Albo.
Decisive compared to weak was the finding of the latest Newspoll, a terrible contrast for Anthony Albanese.
While the confrontation over whether Australia should embrace nuclear energy will be superficial as the next election looms, it is likely to be a debate about nothing anyway.
The scare campaign started early in June when Anthony Albanese’s allies tried to demonize nuclear energy with memes like this
Another union shared this image of a post-nuclear dystopia
Why? Because even if Dutton wins the next election, he would likely do so as a minority government, beholden to Teals in the lower house and the Greens in the Senate.
It’s hard to imagine any of these groups giving nuclear energy a major boost.
That’s ironic, considering it’s a guaranteed path to net zero emissions, which Teals and Greens endlessly point out how important it is to achieve.
Teals and Greens do not want to take the ‘risk’ of Australia using nuclear energy.
It doesn’t matter that we already have a nuclear-powered research facility in Sydney and that we plan to acquire nuclear-powered submarines in the coming decades.
For some reason, Australia has long been stuck in the past when it comes to nuclear energy. The rest of the world embraced it decades ago, but we have always demonized it.
Dutton is trying to change that, which is indeed a risky endeavor. It may also be too late to do this if there is a sound economic basis.
The only way to know for sure is to assess the viability of nuclear power after Dutton wins an election in which he advocates for it.
But by then he will have already committed to the energy transition, whether that is wise or not.
Now that the cost calculations have been released, expect Labor to try to focus on this issue as a way to improve its recently declining political fortunes.