There was something appropriate about Peter Dutton publishing the costs 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 thirteenth guest, betrayed Jesus, resulting in his crucifixion on a Friday.
Will Dutton’s nuclear policy result in his political crucifixion? While vision is great, it is also a high-target strategy, which usually doesn’t work if there is opposition.
Ask Bill Shorten, who found a way to lose the “can’t-miss” 2019 election by generating big policy ideas.
Dutton says his nuclear policy will cost $331 billion over 25 years. Labor claims the real figure is closer to $600 billion.
Regardless of where the truth lies, Dutton’s policy gives the Labor Party something to aim for.
It gives a tangible reason for the ALP to mount a negative fear campaign demonizing the risks involved in 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 on the horizon and create a secure energy pathway at a time when many Australians are being asked to turn off the appliances. so that the electrical grid does not break.
There was something appropriate about Peter Dutton publishing the costs of his grand vision for nuclear energy on Friday the 13th, writes political editor Peter van Onselen.
With a hot summer expected before the next federal election, Dutton appears to be banking on problems with the energy grid that will raise questions about whether renewable energy as an alternative to coal can keep the lights on.
Of course, this whole debate has more to do with politics and rhetorical positioning than politics.
In the normal course of events, Dutton should have announced plans to properly assess the viability (or otherwise) of nuclear power after winning the next election.
It would have been a responsible course of action, even if it sounds a bit vague.
Political parties need the machinery of government to adequately study, cost and plan major policy initiatives, such as the nuclearization of the nation.
But Dutton wants to appear strong and take advantage of the contrast between how voters see him compared to Albo.
Decisive compared to weak was the result of the latest Newspoll, a terrible contrast for Anthony Albanese, no doubt.
While the standoff over whether Australia should adopt nuclear power will be superficial as the next election approaches, it will probably be a debate about nothing anyway.
The scare campaign began early in June when Anthony Albanese’s allies attempted to demonize nuclear power with memes like this one.
Another union shared this image of a post-nuclear dystopia
Because? Because even if Dutton wins the next election, he will probably do so as a minority government, beholden to the Teals in the Lower House and the Greens in the Senate.
It’s hard to imagine any of these groups making a big push for nuclear power.
This is ironic, given that it is a guaranteed path to net zero emissions, something the Teals and Greens endlessly insist on achieving.
The Greens and Teals will not take the “risk” of Australia going nuclear.
Never mind that we already have a nuclear-powered research facility in Sydney and plans 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 adopted it decades ago, but we have always demonized it.
Dutton is trying to change that, which is certainly risky business. It may also be too late to do so on solid economic grounds.
The only way to know for sure is to evaluate the viability of nuclear power after Dutton wins an election championing that idea.
But by then you will have already committed to the energy transition, whether prudent or not.
Now that the costs have been published, the Labor Party is expected to try to focus on the issue, as a way to improve its recently declining political fortunes.