OPINION
With voting day in the Indigenous Voice” referendum drawing closer, and polls showing support falling even lower, the question naturally becomes: then what? Politics will, after all, continue, regardless of the referendum outcome.
For Anthony Albanese, a referendum loss will be a deadly blow to his leadership. Not immediately fatal, perhaps — but there, much depends on how he handles the fallout. Labor’s far-left backroom will be apoplectic.
For opposition leader Peter Dutton the question, either way, will be one of finding an issue to hammer the government with. This was, after all, the strategy that won Tony Abbott, another deeply “unpopular” Liberal leader, a landslide victory over Australia’s most consistently popular PM in the last half-century. Zero in on the issue that voters are angriest about, and hammer it home, day after day.
You won’t be “popular” — a Negative Nancy never is — but it’s a surer path to election victory against a first-term incumbent than playing “Us, too!”, catch-up politics.
As it happens, Dutton’s already clearly fixed on an issue. Like Abbott, he’s hitting the government right in the climate change.
Australia is heading towards an extraordinary, intense and unpredictable battle over nuclear power at the federal election – the next stage in our permanent climate change political war – with Peter Dutton determined to transform the terms of the climate debate.
No matter how many ignorant schoolchildren, unemployable trustafarians, and nosey-nanna frightbats glue themselves to roads, climate cultism has never been an election winner in Australia. Kevin Rudd campaigned on “the great moral issue of our time”, and lost. Tony Abbott hammered Rudd, and Julia Gillard before him, on the carbon tax — and won. Despite the media hysterics, the mostly mythical charge that Abbott dubbed climate change “a load of crap” never really bit hard. If anything, more voters quietly agreed with him.
Opinion polling consistently shows that climate change ranks last on issues of voter concerns. And when climate policies negatively impact the issues voters do care about — the cost of living especially — it’s disastrous for those pushing them. Gillard’s carbon tax was a millstone around her government’s neck that grew heavier by the day.
The carbon tax was a feather boa compared to “Net Zero”.
Senior Coalition figures are divided on the way forward. But opposition climate change and energy spokesman Ted O’Brien tells Inquirer: “I have come to the conclusion we cannot reach net zero in Australia without next-generation, zero-emissions nuclear energy. We need to learn from other countries that have been decarbonising successfully while maintaining strong economies, and they include substantial amounts of nuclear energy” […]
The Liberals and Nationals know public opinion is shifting. Realism is invading the debate. People are grasping how hard net zero is as a goal. They sense it is irrational to say nuclear is illegal. Yet the risks are real and an anti-nuclear political scare would have traction.
Clearly, Labor are already spooked. Hence, Chris Bowen’s attempt at a pre-emptive strike, last week.
The pre-emptive strike this week by Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen with deliberately exaggerated figures on the cost of the Coalition’s undecided nuclear power policy is designed to discredit the nuclear option ahead of its announcement.
If anything, though, it discredited Bowen even more. Not only were the numbers clearly exaggerated (assuming, for instance, 100% taxpayer funding), but even with that, the cost of going nuclear comes in at a fraction of Bowen’s demented Net Zero plan.
The Coalition is convinced Bowen’s renewables rollout will fail – in delivery and in the politics. Dutton’s central propositions, now mounted for some time, are that Bowen’s 82 per cent renewable commitment at 2030 is over-reach, a flawed policy, won’t deliver lower consumer prices while it will ignite a grassroots backlash across many communities where farmers, environmentalists, the tourist industry, fishers and local residents and industry are launching protest movements.
The Australian
And he’s right on every count. Just as Tony Abbott was when he belted Julia Gillard’s “Great Big New Tax”, which would drive up prices everywhere. And sure enough, as businesses and consumers began to feel the hit, the political pain came romping in.
A pro-nuclear stance naturally holds some risks for Dutton — the chattering classes and the media will go feral, for a start. The Greens, for whom anti-nuclear is near holy writ, will be apoplectic.
But the benefits clearly outweigh the risks. Australian voters are far less afraid of nuclear than they used to be. Despite the fear-mongering, the industry’s track record on safety is strong — and the big, scary accidents of even the recent past are associated with old, antiquated technology. New generation nuclear is safer than ever, while next-generation reactors using thorium promise to slash the problem of nuclear waste.
Most importantly, nuclear gives the Coalition an “out” on the climate wars. By promoting nuclear, the Coalition can truthfully claim to be committed to reducing carbon dioxide emissions, while at the same time distancing itself from the lunacy of the Climate Cult.