Source : the age
The rift between the Liberal and Nationals parties over their commitment to nuclear energy won’t just determine the energy policy the Coalition takes to the next election, it could either lock in or blow up Australia’s bipartisan support for reaching net zero emissions by 2050.
A split between the parties over nuclear would not just affect policy, it would force around nine senior Nationals to forgo about $58,415 a year in salary.
The Coalition’s commitment to nuclear energy will determine the future of bipartisan support for net zero. Credit: Getty Images
If the Coalition splits, the Nationals would separate from the Liberals and exit the official federal opposition and the official positions that come with it.
Around nine or so Nationals MPs would be entitled to be selected as shadow ministers under the rule that divides official positions between the Coalition partners – based on their number of seats – which is unusually high this year for the junior party following the Liberals’ election wipeout.
A shadow minister is entitled to an extra 25 per cent a year on top of the base MPs salary of $233,660.
The ongoing commitment to nuclear and net zero policies is a live debate within the Coalition. Former opposition leaders Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton took a net zero commitment to the past two elections. Still, both the Liberal and Nationals party rooms are debating whether they will remain committed to net zero, while the Nationals have already signalled their continued commitment to nuclear.
Labor’s commitment to maintain Australia’s ban on nuclear energy blows out the timeline to building nuclear reactors by at least three years and potentially six years or more, given the Coalition would need to gain more than 30 seats to form government again.
The Coalition’s current energy policy centres on building 13 nuclear reactors, spread across seven sites that currently have ageing coal plants, while dramatically scaling back on Labor’s renewables push.
If it sticks with this plan, the Coalition will run out of time to replace polluting fossil fuels by the Paris Agreement’s 2050 deadline.
The CSIRO found last year that it would take 16 years or more to build the first nuclear reactor in Australia. Also, the Coalition has committed to conducting a two-year study on proposed sites before construction begins – and that is also assuming it overcomes expert warnings that it would take a decade for Australia to establish a nuclear bureaucracy.
Willing Coalition? Liberal Leader Sussan Ley and Nationals Leader David Littleproud.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen
On this timeline, the earliest that the first reactor could be up and running is 2046, with an open question over the 12 or so more needed to complete the Coalition’s plan.
The Coalition has claimed Australia could build nuclear reactors far quicker than the CSIRO’s best-case scenario – within 12 years – citing the authoritarian United Arab Emirates as the example. The chief science agency has said this timeline is unachievable.
Liberal leader Sussan Ley has said “there won’t be a climate war” under her leadership, acknowledged the need to cut emissions and committed to relying on her colleagues to determine the Liberal policy positions.
But outspoken Queensland Nationals senator Matt Canavan and his lower house colleague Colin Boyce are campaigning for the party to ditch net zero.
Nationals leader David Littleproud said on Monday he would be “pragmatic” about nuclear policy and would consider scaling back to a commitment to remove Australia’s nuclear energy ban.
Interestingly, delegates at the Nationals’ most recent federal conference voted in 2023 to stick with net zero, a key policy for many agricultural exporters who could cop extra tariffs on their exports if Australia ditches the commitment.
