Zero emissions? Jobs? Despite this billboard on the outskirts of Kingaroy, we haven’t heard a lot about nuclear energy in the campaigning since the election was called … and I’d guess there’s a reason why, polling suggests it’s not popular

April 21, 2025

by Anne Miller

Do you remember that catchy little slogan the LNP rolled out during the failed “Voice” referendum?

“If you don’t know, vote no!”

Really, there wasn’t a lot to know about the Referendum … it was a simple vote to decide whether to include an advisory committee, with no power, in the Constitution.

However, people overwhelmingly rejected this simple concept. I assume at least some who voted “No” genuinely didn’t know. Perhaps they trusted what their favourite MPs (or Facebook commenters) said? Or perhaps they were too time-stressed to actually find out.

We now have another “referendum” coming up, but it’s not a simple yes / no proposition.

Early voting opens on Tuesday (April 22) for the Federal Election.

The result could shape the direction of the country for a century

The LNP has told us the election is another referendum … this time on the future energy policy direction of Australia.

The Coalition wants to overturn Australia’s nuclear ban and build seven nuclear power generating facilities, including one at Tarong in the South Burnett.

But this time, Nationals Leader and Member for Maranoa David Littleproud is NOT using his favourite “If you don’t know .. ” catchphrase.

Here’s why I don’t know …

1. How many nuclear reactors does the Coalition envisage being built at Tarong? One large one or several of the yet-to-be-released “small modular reactors”? I don’t know.

2. How much water would a nuclear-powered Tarong use? At a pro-nuclear forum held in Kingaroy, speakers shared two vastly different scenarios. The LNP has said no more water would be used than what the current Tarong Power Station is currently allocated. The Australian Conservation Foundation says nuclear generators use 25 per cent more water than coal-fired stations. The Queensland Conservation Council says a nuclear Tarong would use a 50 per cent greater allocation. All these estimates are coming from groups with self-interest. But what is the correct figure? I don’t know. (Either way, I know the visions of re-allocating Boondooma Dam water for future agricultural use in the South Burnett would evaporate unless there was a particularly large project carried out to expand the capacity of the dam, and there has been no feasibility study carried out into this).

3. Traditionally, many nuclear power generating plants have been built near the coast. This not only provided a ready source of water for use in the plant, and a handy outlet for warmed water away from more fragile river eco-systems, but also provided a water source in case of an accident. During the Fukushima accident, the damaged plant was flooded with seawater to prevent it from exploding. Where could this water come from at Tarong? I don’t know.  And where would this irradiated water be stored afterwards? I don’t know.

4. Where could the waste from these seven new nuclear power stations – waste that can remain dangerous for decades, centuries and even thousands of years – be stored safely? On site, as the LNP has sometimes suggested? Or at a new special storage facility, also sometimes suggested, but its location as yet unannounced? I don’t know.  How would the waste be transferred to a new facility? By road, by rail, by air? I don’t know.

5. Even if there were to be a minor escape of radioactivity from a nuclear power generating facility – and it can happen – what emergency plans would be in place? Will our local emergency services personnel (police, firefighters, paramedics) receive extra training to cope with this new risk? I don’t know. 

6. If the Coalition manages to overturn the nuclear ban in Australia, how long would it be before a nuclear-powered Tarong could be built and start producing power? I don’t know. However, I do know that recent overseas projects have suffered blowouts in both cost and timeframes.

7. Where would nearby residents go if an evacuation was ordered? I don’t know. The Fukushima disaster resulted in a 30km no-fly zone and a 20km ground-exclusion zone, but there were hotspots of radiation up to 60km away. The Chernobyl explosion in 1986 resulted in a 30km exclusion zone being declared around the plant, with whole towns forcibly evacuated. Some nuclear proponents are now saying the scale of those evacuations was not necessary. But would you stay? And how would it affect property prices?

8. How would Australia’s “clean, green” international image for agriculture that we have carefully cultivated to boost our exports fare if fallout, however minor, was detected? I don’t know. But I bet producers near the exclusion zone would be unhappy to find their products subjected to years of expensive testing to see if it had become contaminated by wind-borne fallout.

9. And the big one … how much will nuclear cost? This is hotly debated with the Coalition’s figures being disputed by many, and the Coalition, in turn,  pointing to the cost of the rollout of renewables. What is the true figure? I don’t know. And, I suspect no one else does, either, despite the modelling on all sides of the debate by “friendly” consultants and think tanks. However, the fact that a political party that usually promotes private investment in infrastructure is pushing for government ownership of the proposed nuclear facilities suggests that savvy investors know the figures don’t add up.

If you are relying on the Queensland Government’s ban to prevent a nuclear power station being built at Tarong. Don’t.

While the Crisafulli Government has repeatedly stated nuclear is not part of its plans, our Maranoa MP has also said many times that a Coalition Federal Government would be willing to force State Governments to accept nuclear energy. I doubt the Queensland LNP would argue about “States’ rights” in a stoush with the Coalition in the High Court.

So if you don’t know?

It’s your choice where you put your vote for the House of Representatives and the Senate, but remember this time, your vote will be affecting the future of Australia for a long time past the next four years.

This is a referendum on a nuclear future. A nuclear future for the South Burnett.

This is not about the small reactors contained in AUKUS nuclear submarines. A failure on board, however unlikely and tragic, would only affect the crew.

It is not about Lucas Heights (a tiny, non-power producing reactor that produces medical isotopes). That’s comparing peanuts and coal trucks.

It is not about whether you think wind towers and solar farms are ugly or a necessity (they are happening anyway, and are a vital part of the Coalition’s future “energy mix”).

It is not about whether you think coal is great or we should stop exporting gas. World markets are forcing us away from coal (and gas). Our resource companies know this, which is why they’re trying to bank as many dollars – and pressure as many politicians – as they can in the meantime.

And it is definitely not about jobs. The South Burnett is going to lose the valuable mining jobs at Meandu whether Tarong goes nuclear or not. How many members of the current Tarong power stations workforce would still be of employment age – and have the right skills – to score a position in a nuclear power station?

So if you don’t know …  

A 30km exclusion zone that would be thrown up around the Tarong Power Station in the event of a nuclear accident could wipe out South Burnett towns and hundreds of square kilometres of prime agricultural land (Map: Google)

Read more Editorial columns

Related articles: 

  

 

2 Responses to "If You Don’t Know …"

  1. There are four reasons I won’t be voting for the LNP: Peter, Dutton, Nuclear, Power.

    Not too happy with Labor, either.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.