When the Coalition was paralysed by whether or not to legislate marriage equality, it turned to the wisdom of the people.
The plebiscite was divisive, an obstacle to marriage equality which could have been dealt with by a free parliamentary vote, and which many queer people felt was a referendum on their dignity.
One of its proponents, the now opposition leader, Peter Dutton, concluded that the postal survey had worked, was appropriate for a “fundamental change” to society, but should not be repeated.
I think a popular vote on what was a human rights question – equality before the law – was a very bad idea.
But more participatory democracy in general is a good idea.
A plebiscite should be held on election day 2025, on nuclear energy.
This too is a contentious public policy issue, requiring legislative change for a new industry, which the Coalition concedes will require a social licence. What better way to test whether the Australian people are up for nuclear than by asking them?
The Albanese government should propose a plebiscite with two questions: first, do you support removing Australia’s ban on civilian nuclear energy? Second, would you support a nuclear generator in your local area?
The energy minister, Chris Bowen, is adamant: nuclear energy is too expensive, estimated to cost $387bn, and is not technologically feasible, as small modular reactors are not commercially available.
Nuclear power in Australia is so far off in the future it will require coal power plants to have their life extended, exacerbating global heating. The shadow energy minister, Ted O’Brien, admitted as much last week when he said the Coalition did not want coal plants retired “prematurely”.
So far the Albanese government is united, but there are some cracks such as the Labor-affiliated Australian Workers’ Union calling to lift the ban.
While most in Labor are institutionally, instinctively anti-nuclear, there is also some frustration that by refusing to even consider the ban, Labor might be allowing Dutton to pretend that government is the obstacle to nuclear power, rather than its exorbitant cost and investors’ appetite for the renewable alternative.
Putting it to the people clears that argument away.
The arguments against nuclear – cost unfeasibility, and worsening the climate crisis in the near term – are excellent. I expect they’d carry the day.
As the voice referendum showed, even if there is some support for change, fear of the unknown is always the easier case.
If, somehow, the Albanese government managed to lose the first question, I doubt many people would be putting their hand up for a nuclear reactor in their back yard.
Already the Coalition is mooting the possibility of “incentives” for communities that host them, some sugar to help the radioactive medicine go down, precisely because it knows it would be too unpopular otherwise.
Risk-averse governments tend to be a bit like barristers abiding by the rule don’t ask a question you don’t know the answer to. Or, in the popular vote context: don’t offer people a choice if you don’t really want to carry out their orders.
Ask David Cameron, a Remainer who promised a referendum on leaving the EU, only to watch on horrified as team Brexit carried the day. He lost the referendum and his prime ministership, because it wasn’t credible for him to implement the people’s decision, which he didn’t agree with.
But, if re-elected, an Albanese government would be in no such bind. Even if the Coalition were able to persuade people to agree to lift the ban, and some communities didn’t object to a nuclear plant, all Labor would be committed to is lifting the ban, not actually delivering nuclear energy.
Lift the ban, and wait for the nuclear industry to spring up. It won’t – because nuclear energy is prohibitively expensive, and would require taxpayer support to get off the ground. Or a carbon price, which is what the Australian Nuclear Association has said would be required.
I’m sure the next election will be about many things. Labor will want to run on its record, its cost-of-living relief and the macroeconomics if it slays the inflation dragon. The Greens want to run on housing affordability.
But Dutton’s commitment to an expensive and distant prospect in order to deflect from his party’s lack of action on climate change will be a major issue.
Far from indulging the nuclear fantasy, a plebiscite is the best way to make people wake up to it.
