Common decency dictates that the 2028 federal election could not possibly become the third consecutive plebiscite fought on energy, but the Coalition's nuclear plans have left the door open for the possibility due to Australia's three-year election cycle.
Subscribe now for unlimited access to all our agricultural news
across the nation
or signup to continue reading
The detail has escaped popular discussion, but underlines the narrative, in the immediate fallout that has spread far and wide after the Coalition dropped seven proposed sites for nuclear power plants on Wednesday and drew the battlelines ahead of the forthcoming election.
Several Labor state and Coalition shadow governments have outright rejected the proposal, the big end of town have red-flagged its viability, although some, like businessman Ziggy Switkowski who assessed the plan before it was released, have backed it, and the NSW Nationals say they don't want it in their backyards while Barnaby Joyce who is a local member has.
However, other stakeholders, such as the Business Council of Australia, have welcomed a "serious discussion" on Australia's road to 2050 and the possibility of an agnostic approach to the transition to net zero emissions, including nuclear, while remaining uneasy about the immediate impact on the renewable investment - given that renewable energy is also part of the Coalition plan this is important.
The National Farmers Federation hopes the announcement will sharpen the debate around energy, as well as the Albanese Government's focus on delivering "meaningful protections for farmland and affected communities".
Labor, itself hellbent on its green hydrogen-led charge to transition the energy grid to renewables, and energy companies with skin the game were quick to say that the major policy announcement had raised more questions than answers.
Such as cost, placement, social license and timing.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has repeatedly flagged that the next election will be held in May 2025, meaning Labor will serve its full term following its May 2022 election victory.
If the Coalition should win the day, Opposition leader Peter Dutton said it will then conduct a two-and-a-half year comprehensive community engagement process and a detailed technical analysis of each of the seven proposed reactor plant locations.
Plants by the way are different to the number of reactors with each plant likely to be a multi-reactor site depending on the size of the reactor and the amount of energy required to be pumped into the grid.
At the very best this will start immediately following the election. More likely it will take months to get the investigative and consultative ducks in a row given several ministries, departments and agencies would be involved.
The Coalition's own timeline then ensures that the first two sites will not be settled until six or fewer months before the 2028 election.
The timing then gets more interesting and tighter if the government calls an early election and the need, whenever an election is held, for the Coalition to enter caretaker mode.
The Government must cease taking major policy decisions during this time except on urgent matters and then only after formal consultation with the Opposition. The conventions apply to the making of decisions, but not to their announcement.
Then, if the scoping process begins a day more than six months after the election, the results will not even be theoretically know before the plebiscite after next in 2028.
Whatever the result there is a reasonable chance the Coalition may not have closed the door on debate around Australia's best pathway to net-zero by 2050.
Despite it all the Coalition has welcomed the forthcoming election becoming a "referendum" on energy but the alternative government clearly has some explaining to do before polling day to win the hearts and votes of enough Australians to win government.
THE QUESTIONS
Firstly, there is a national moratorium written into law on nuclear energy and five of the seven sites proposed by the Coalition are in states that also have legislated nuclear bans.
The proposed sites, as revealed by ACM Agri several weeks ago, are retired or retiring coal-fired power stations located at Mount Piper and Liddell in New South Wales, Loy Yang in Victoria, Tarong in the federal seat of Maranoa, held by Nationals leader David Littleproud, and Callide in Queensland, Port Augusta in South Australia and Collie in the southwest corner of Western Australia.
Three state governments have already refused to consider lifting the bans and while government's change, it does not help that the shadow government's in those states have pledged the same.
Meanwhile, some Coalition backbenchers have privately expressed disappointment that the sites had to be revealed when the debate should always only have been framed around whether Australia's nuclear ban should be lifted.
The Commonwealth has broad constitutional powers, and would have a mandate, but Mr Dutton may well be hoping the Paul Keating quip being true in "never stand between a state premier and a bucket of money".
Speaking of money, Mr Dutton has also come under intense fire for not revealing what the reactors might cost, he said on Wednesday that he was unlikely to do so before voters go to the polls. However, a day later he said the costings had been prepared and would be released before the election.
Notwithstanding, the Coalition pledged to build either two small modular reactors by 2035 or two large-scale nuclear power stations, such as the AP1000 or APR1400 plant designs, by 2037.
A recent CSIRO report said a 1000MW plant built today would cost skywards of $8.6 billion, the AP1000 is a pressurised water reactor with a net power output of 1117 MW.
But the costings will only be a rough guide given the actual sites selected from the two-and-a-half year investigation will not be complete before at least late 2027.
Victoria's Allan Government is overseeing a rail loop project by the way that has blown out in cost nearly as much as the cost of a reactor from the original modelling.
Mr Dutton also surprisingly announced the nuclear plants would be commonwealth-owned and operated, meaning that the host communities would house an asset of national importance.
This is despite saying only a few weeks ago that they would be funded through private capital.
It could be a sign of a lack of commercial interest in the projects or that, like in other nations, the government needs to finance the first plants to kick start the industry.
Regardless the national economy has its limits and it is unknown if the Coalition simply intends to re-purpose Labor's renewable envelopes given that renewables are firmly part of its own agenda.
But that is even premature given questions over how the privately-owned coal stations will be purchased or, again, at what cost to the taxpayer.
This point became particularly acute after some of those companies that own the retiring coal-fired power stations say nuclear in not in their plans and they will not sell the sites.
There have also been little public discussions over where nuclear waste dumps will be dug and what routes the waste will be taken from reactors on public roads to those sites.
The danger of mixing nuclear reactors and fault lines has also been a major stumbling block for the Coalition in finalising its energy plans.
ACM-Agri understands that while the risk of earthquakes damaging reactors has yet to permeate the public narrative, tremors over the perceived threat have rippled through Liberal ranks since Mr Dutton first flagged the policy.
The Coalition will now shift its focus to winning the support needed to overturn Australia's nuclear ban, its starting point is a belief that public resistance to nuclear energy is overstated.
It say's its own polling suggests that younger Australians are increasingly open-minded to nuclear as an energy alternative while older Australians may be the opposite.
In 2007, Kevin Rudd's campaign team ran a negative ad campaign, playing on a fear of nuclear fallout, after then Prime Minister John Howard ran the nuclear idea up the flagpole and Labor will doubtlessly seize on polls suggesting that local residents are adverse to nuclear.
The issue for Labor this time around is that younger demographics are much more interested in climate change, finding a solution and wanting to be engaged in authentic debate rather than negative political campaigning.
THE REACTION
National Farmers Federation acting chief executive Charlie Thomas said Australian farmers and regional communities wanted policymakers to base energy discussions around impact on land use and people.
That while national energy policy and emissions reduction is a shared responsibility and agriculture will play its part, "that part has to be fair and not comprise productivity, profitability or food security".
"The NFF's position remains that Australia's national energy policies must deliver affordable, reliable and increasingly lower emissions energy for all Australians," he said.
"These policies should be technology-neutral and driven by markets. This isn't about cherry picking solar or wind energy or nuclear, but about having all options on the table."
He added that agriculture cannot be a sacrificial lamb on the pathway to net zero and that the organisation would hold the current government - and any future government - to commitments not to impose targets on farmers directly.
"As renewable energy projects have been rolled out across rural landscapes, landholders and regional communities have been treated with contempt, and their concerns and contributions have been ignored," he said.
"Engagement on any future energy proposals must do better. Communities must have the right to say no, farmland must be protected and landholders must be properly consulted."
Meanwhile, Greens leader Adam Bandt said while the nuclear plan is a "fantasy", "Labor love this fake fight because it's a distraction from the coal and gas projects they keep approving."
Coincidentally, the Tamboran gas project at Beetaloo Basin was awarded major project status by Labor on Wednesday.
Minerals Council of Australia chief executive Tania Constable backed the Coalition's announcement, saying the policy presented a pathway for industry to cut emissions while retaining profitability and access to reliable baseload power.
"High future demand for reliable and clean energy means that all energy types, including nuclear power, will be indispensable in meeting Australia's future energy needs," she said.
"Building a diverse energy mix that meets both environmental and economic goals is essential for keeping vital industries competitive amidst significant cost pressures and ambitious emissions targets."
While BCA chief executive Bran Black said the priority for whoever ends up steering the ship must be addressing short-term energy shortfalls while developing a long-term comprehensive roadmap to 2050.
"The BCA position is we should be technology agnostic including nuclear and all forms of energy as we transition to net zero emissions by 2050 and we welcome the Coalition's move to lift the ban on nuclear," Mr Black said.
"However, questions still remain how quickly nuclear could realistically be built and what impact it would have on the roll out of renewables and the associated investment decisions that will be required by private capital.
"Understanding the cost and timeframes for implementation is critical because the Coalition is proposing to pay for and own these nuclear sites, and that in turn affects the assessment of whether other energy projects are viable."
