Peter Dutton is staking his electoral hopes on nuclear energy. Regardless of whether it's a political stunt or genuine policy, the Opposition Leader has an ace up his sleeve - he just doesn't know it yet.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
Come election day, Dutton will rely on widespread support for the construction of seven nuclear reactors. Most of Australia is split on the issue, with discourse on both sides embittered and entrenched in decades-old prejudices.
Yet, remarkably, there remains one portion of the electorate open-minded and undecided: Gen Z.
The Coalition hasn't thought to appeal to us yet - that makes sense, as we don't seem to agree on much - but if Dutton is serious about nuclear energy, he'd do well to start targeting young voters.
Why? Because Peter Garrett turned 71 this year, meaning we barely know of Midnight Oil let alone the Nuclear Disarmament Party. Because Fukushima, for us, only exists on the vague periphery of our memories.
Because Chernobyl, now ancient history, might as well be the name of a chess master or vodka brand.
Young voters weren't present to see the British nuclear tests at Maralinga and the Montebello Islands in the 1950s and '60s, nor to witness the anti-nuclear demonstrations of the '70s, '80s and '90s.
Accordingly, we're the first Australian generation in decades to hold relatively impartial opinions on nuclear energy.
While 18- to 34-year-olds have the lowest strong approval rating for nuclear energy, our "somewhat approve" and "unsure" ratings are huge, recent Pyxis Polling and Insights findings putting this collective number at 59 per cent.
The Resolve Political Monitor offered a similar report a few months ago, noting while young Australians exhibited the lowest outright support, we're the most undecided cohort on the issue.
You can expect that number to increase for the younger Gen Z voting bracket of about 18-27.
And, for us, NIMBYism isn't much of a concern - chiefly because we don't have our own BYs to worry about, what with home ownership being a largely distant prospect.
The fact we grew up without promises of nuclear meltdown - and that we're therefore open to nuclear energy - should be front and centre of Peter Dutton's mind.
After all, it presents him with a golden opportunity to win over young voters on this issue.
But Dutton doesn't seem to realise this yet.
And if the Coalition is to persuade young voting Australians of the importance of nuclear energy, its place within the energy transition must be promoted as needed and sound - assuming, of course, this can be proven as true.
The Coalition's nuclear policy presents a chance to change their climate reputation, to appeal to the sensitivities of young Australians.
It's a no-brainer: nuclear power plants should be framed as a serious, long-term commitment to net-zero.
But for this to be so, they must be accompanied by far greater investment in wind and solar energy, too (a non-negotiable for us and, rightly, an electoral deal-breaker).
Rather than dismissing the high cost of nuclear energy, the Coalition should be shouting it from the rooftops; after all, young voters want climate action, and dollar signs - billion-dollar signs most of all - suggest it's happening.
Instead of dredging up the usual culture wars brand of partisan insults, proponents of nuclear energy should appeal to the cosmopolitan leanings of young voters.
When it comes to convincing young Australians, the best argument to field is each of the world's 20 largest economies - with the sole exception of Australia, which happens to have one-third of the world's uranium - either import, produce or invest in nuclear energy.
We're a generation bent on modernity, obsessed with keeping up with trends.
For the Coalition to be successful, nuclear energy needs to be framed as a fad Australia just can't miss.
There's an expiry date on our open-mindedness, by the way.
Debate is raging, meaning young voters are beginning to make up their minds.
And, assuming Dutton is serious about this policy, the challenge of convincing us of cost, timeline and climate is unenviable.
Labor has its own lessons to learn here, too.
If Gen Z voters will make their decisions about nuclear energy based on fact rather than feeling, then scare campaigns aren't the way to go.
Dan Repacholi's four-eyed fish Instagram post, Andrew Leigh's three-eyed Blinky Bill, Julian Hill's two-headed cow, Jacinta Allan's Simpsons nuclear fish - these efforts make little ground with a generation who, as 18-year-old nuclear advocate Will Shackel puts it, is "broadly supportive of science".
For the Coalition, winning the support of young Australians might be possible on this issue - though it's a tall order.
Yet when Adam Bandt says of nuclear submarine deals that they put "floating Chernobyls in the heart of Australia's cities", most of us haven't the faintest idea of what he's on about.
And that's why Dutton might just be in with a chance when it comes to nuclear energy.
- Daniel Cash is a law student at the ANU.
