Labor showing ‘complete lack of intellectual argument’ against nuclear

Mr Bowen has been scathing of the Coalition’s energy plans since their announcement last week, repeatedly claiming constructing nuclear reactors would be prohibitively expensive and undermine Australia’s ability to meet emissions targets.

In Parliament on Monday, the Energy Minister again went on the attack, highlighting the opposition’s failure to reveal costings for its policy as evidence it lacked detail and substance.

“The leader of the opposition (Peter Dutton) was asked about the cost of his policy and I was watching thinking ‘here we go, we’re going to get the figures, the details of the cost’ and this is what the leader of the opposition said: it will be a big bill,” Mr Bowen said.

“The question for the leader of the opposition is how does a big bill lead to cheaper energy? He hasn’t released that.

“The leader of the opposition says the next election will be a referendum on his nuclear plans? Okay, that’s fine. Well if you won’t let the Australian people know, they should vote no to his plans.

“The Australian people deserve better than the scam they got last week.”

Mr Bowen’s claim that Australians should vote no to the nuclear plans due to a lack of detail was markedly similar to calls made by the No campaign during the Voice referendum, which at the time prompted the Albanese government to argue anyone who felt uninformed to seek out more information before making a decision.

The discrepancy between those calls and Mr Bowen’s words in Parliament was not lost on his counterpart, with Mr O’Brien telling Skynews.com.au on Monday night it was hard to see how the government could use that argument given “its own energy policy is void of detail.”

“Labor is flat footed as the lights are going out and energy prices are soaring, and now they’re desperately looking for an angle of attack against our energy policy. Labor’s first line of attack were cartoon memes and since that flopped, it’s going to try and steal tactics from the no-campaign against the Voice,” he said.

“This shows a complete lack of intellectual argument against zero-emissions nuclear energy.

“The problem for Labor in trying to use the ‘if you don’t know, vote no’ angle is that its own energy policy is void of detail. Australians already know more detail about the Coalition’s energy plan than Labor’s, and we’ve only started laying ours out. Labor has been in government for two years and it’s still a mystery.”

Mr O’Brien claimed that while Australians knew the seven proposed locations for nuclear plants, the government had yet to reveal where it would install “60 million solar panels and 3,500 wind turbines.”

He also suggested Labor had no “practical plan” to replace coal power plants, highlighting the federal government advocated against developing more facilities whilst “its state counterparts to extend coal.”

In addition, the shadow energy minister argued the government was not meeting its own obligations to communities concerned about the rollout of renewables, including by “refusing” to explain how it would dispose of nuclear waste to come from AUKUS submarines.

“The Coalition has been clear on its community engagement process but Labor is still sitting on its own government report which confirms its current community engagement process is broken,” Mr O’Brien said.

“On nuclear technology specifically, the Coalition has been clear on how and where it will manage nuclear waste but Labor is still refusing to reveal how and where it will build the permanent nuclear waste repository it signed up to under AUKUS.”

In Parliament on Monday, several government Ministers attempted to address those claims, arguing any waste from AUKUS would be minimal and could be safely and easily disposed of.

Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles, though, went further, claiming it was misleading to compare waste from nuclear submarines with the “tonnes” of nuclear materials produced by a full scale reactor.