The 2025 Australian federal election has delivered a clear verdict: the Australian Labor Party, led by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, will be returned to government.
This victory solidifies Labor’s hold on power and represents a significant rejection of the opposition’s energy policy. Particularly, it dismisses the Coalition’s flagship proposal to introduce nuclear energy, championed by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.
Dutton’s nuclear energy policy failed to resonate with voters, ensuring that Australia will not pursue nuclear power in the foreseeable future.
The 2025 Election Outcome: Labor’s Continued Reign
The 2025 federal election was a closely watched contest, with both major parties vying for control. Economic pressures, cost-of-living concerns, and debates over Australia’s energy future shaped the political landscape. Labor’s victory, though narrow, underscores its ability to maintain voter trust despite challenges.
Labor’s success can be attributed to its focus on cost-of-living relief and renewable energy investments. The party’s campaign capitalized on Western Australia’s “red wall” seats, such as Tangney, where Albanese actively campaigned.
By targeting marginal seats and leveraging Albanese’s relatively stronger public approval, Labor secured the numbers needed to form government. The Coalition made gains in some areas, but these were not enough to overturn Labor’s lead. Labor’s messaging emphasized stability and progress, contrasting with the Coalition’s divisive nuclear energy agenda.
Peter Dutton’s Nuclear Energy Policy: A bold but unpopular vision
At the heart of the Coalition’s 2025 campaign was Peter Dutton’s ambitious plan to introduce nuclear energy to Australia. The policy promised a “cheaper, cleaner, and more consistent” energy future. The Coalition proposed building seven nuclear power plants at sites of retiring or retired coal-fired power stations.
These sites spanned New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia, and Western Australia. The plants, to be publicly owned and developed with experienced nuclear companies, were projected to deliver 14 gigawatts by 2050. The plan included small modular reactors operational by 2035 and large-scale reactors by 2037.
Dutton argued that nuclear power would complement renewables and reduce reliance on Chinese-manufactured wind and solar technologies. It would also provide stable baseload power to replace ageing coal plants. The Coalition’s modeling, conducted by Frontier Economics, claimed the plan would cost $331 billion by 2050, a 44% savings compared to Labor’s renewables-led approach, estimated at $594 billion.
Dutton further asserted that nuclear energy would lower household power bills by 44%. This claim was based on the Frontier report’s comparison of different electricity grid scenarios. However, the nuclear policy faced significant hurdles.
Australia has a long-standing federal ban on nuclear energy, introduced by the Howard government. Most states have their own prohibitions. Repealing these bans would require bipartisan support in both houses of Parliament, a near-impossible task given opposition from Labor, the Greens, and many independents.
State premiers, including Queensland’s LNP Premierjust David Crisafulli and Victoria’s Liberal leader Brad Battin, publicly opposed nuclear power. This complicated the Coalition’s plans to override state objections using constitutional powers. The policy’s feasibility and public acceptance remained contentious throughout the campaign.
Why Dutton’s Nuclear Policy failed to gain traction
The rejection of Dutton’s nuclear energy policy can be traced to several key factors. Each undermined the Coalition’s ability to sell the plan to voters. Below, we explore the primary reasons for its failure.
Cost and Feasibility Concerns: Critics, including Labor and independent experts, challenged the Coalition’s cost estimates. The CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) found nuclear energy to be significantly more expensive than renewables. Costs ranged from $145-$238 per megawatt-hour compared to the Coalition’s optimistic $30 per megawatt-hour.
Reports from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) suggested nuclear could increase household power bills by $665-$1,200 annually. This contradicted Dutton’s claims of savings. High-profile cost blowouts in overseas nuclear projects, such as those in the UK and France, fueled skepticism about affordability.
Environmental and Climate Impact: The Coalition’s reliance on extending coal plant operations to bridge the gap until nuclear plants were operational drew criticism. Independent analyses, including one from the Climate Change Authority, estimated Dutton’s plan would result in an additional 1.7-2 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions by 2050. This undermined Australia’s net-zero commitments.
Labor’s plan to achieve 82% renewable energy in the grid by 2030 was seen as more aligned with global climate goals. The Coalition’s approach appeared to delay meaningful emissions reductions. This resonated poorly with environmentally conscious voters.
Public and Political Opposition: Public support for nuclear energy waned as Dutton’s policy became a central campaign issue. Posts on X and surveys indicated a rise in support for maintaining Australia’s nuclear ban. Only 35% of Australians backed nuclear energy, with support dropping when voters understood the policy’s details.
Liberals Against Nuclear, a group of Liberal supporters, ran targeted ad campaigns against the policy. They argued it betrayed Liberal values by increasing bureaucracy and taxpayer risk. Community resistance, including protests by the South Coast Labour Council in Gilmore, further highlighted opposition.
Campaign Missteps: Dutton’s reluctance to visit proposed nuclear sites during the campaign allowed opponents to frame the policy as politically toxic. Labor and Energy Minister Chris Bowen capitalized on this, with Bowen dubbing nuclear the “Voldemort policy.” Albanese’s campaign effectively highlighted the policy’s risks and costs.
Labor’s Effective Counter-Narrative: Labor positioned nuclear energy as “too slow, too expensive, and too risky.” The party highlighted its progress in renewables, noting a 25% increase in renewable energy in the national grid since 2022. Over 330,000 rooftop solar installations in the previous year underscored this momentum.
By framing Dutton’s plan as a threat to Medicare, education, and cost-of-living relief, Labor tapped into voters’ immediate concerns. The potential $600 billion cost of nuclear was a key talking point. Labor’s messaging resonated with voters prioritizing affordability and stability.
Implications for Australia’s Energy Future
With Labor’s re-election, Australia will continue its transition to a renewables-led energy system. Solar, wind, batteries, and pumped hydro will remain priorities. The Albanese government’s plan, supported by the CSIRO and AEMO, aims to deliver clean, reliable, and affordable energy.
Australia’s 2030 target of a 43% emissions reduction below 2005 levels remains a key focus. Offshore wind projects, covering 30,000 km² of Commonwealth waters, will proceed. Dutton’s pledge to cancel three proposed zones will not materialize.
The rejection of nuclear energy means Australia avoids the uncertainties of a nascent nuclear industry. Workforce development, regulatory frameworks, and waste management posed significant challenges. However, Labor faces pressure to deliver on its renewable energy targets.
Coal plants, which supply a significant portion of current electricity, are set to retire by 2035. Investments in storage and grid infrastructure will be critical. Ensuring energy reliability and affordability remains a key challenge.
Conclusion
The 2025 election has reaffirmed Labor’s mandate to lead Australia toward a renewable energy future. Peter Dutton’s nuclear energy vision, though bold, failed to gain traction due to cost, environmental, and political concerns. Its high costs and lack of public support proved insurmountable.
As Australia moves forward, Labor’s challenge is to translate its renewable energy commitments into tangible outcomes. The nation’s energy system must remain affordable, reliable, and sustainable. For now, nuclear energy remains off the table, and Australia’s path to net zero will be powered by renewables and innovation.
