Dutton’s nuclear pitch sparks policy debate and media controversy in the Hunter

1 April 2025

Newcastle Herald and NBN News journalists seen negotiating entry at the front gate yesterday after not receiving an invitation. (Image: NBN News)

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s recent visit to the Hunter region has stirred debate not only over nuclear energy policy but also over the way his team handled local media access.

On Monday, 31 March 2025, Dutton touched down in Newcastle before making his way to Tomago, where he toured Cougar Mining Equipment and announced his plan to build nuclear power stations at former coal plant sites, including one in the Hunter. But his arrival was anything but routine.

Local newsrooms were left scrambling after it became clear they had not been invited to cover the Opposition Leader’s visit. Reporters from the Newcastle Herald and NBN News said they had to negotiate their way into the event, with one NBN journalist, Jane Goldsmith stating on air that we “negotiated their way in but without our own camera” The incident sparked criticism from Labor Senator Tim Ayres, who said Dutton “didn’t want to be challenged” on his nuclear plan. The coalition later blaming an “operational mixup”.

Local radio station 2NUR-FM described how regional journalists were “blindsided” by Dutton’s arrival in Newcastle with only a Sydney/Melbourne press contingent in tow.

The media misstep added fuel to an already heated policy discussion. Dutton’s pitch focused on transitioning former coal communities to nuclear power, using sites like Liddell as potential reactor locations. He argued that nuclear is the only realistic path to providing reliable baseload power and reducing electricity costs for industries like Tomago Aluminium.

Flanked by local Liberal candidates Laurence Antcliff (Paterson) and Emma King (Shortland), Dutton claimed that up to 80% of jobs in the coal sector could be transferred to nuclear, citing international examples. He also confirmed a Coalition government would cancel the proposed 2 GW offshore wind farm off the Port Stephens coast, calling the project “flawed” and saying it lacked local support.

The debate over nuclear versus wind power is now at the centre of national energy policy discussions.

Supporters of nuclear energy argue that it offers dependable, emissions-free electricity that can operate 24/7, unlike wind and solar, which are dependent on weather conditions. Dutton has positioned nuclear as a way to protect energy-intensive industries such as aluminium smelting, which require consistent baseload power to operate efficiently. Advocates also point to successful international transitions in countries like France and Canada, where nuclear plays a central role in the energy mix.

Critics, however, note the significant upfront cost and long lead times associated with nuclear projects. Even under optimistic projections, the first Australian reactor wouldn’t generate electricity until well into the 2030s. Concerns about nuclear waste, safety, and community consent also remain unresolved. The high financial burden, with some modelling suggesting costs could exceed $600 billion raises questions about whether the same investment could deliver greater returns through renewable energy and storage.

On the other side of the debate, the now-threatened offshore wind farm proposed off the Hunter coast had been welcomed by many in the region as a job-creating and lower-risk project. The 2 GW development, supported by the federal government, was set to begin consultation and preliminary construction in the coming years. Proponents say it could power millions of homes and help Australia reach its renewable energy targets. Offshore wind, while newer to Australia, has been rapidly adopted in Europe and North America.

However, Dutton dismissed the plan as “unwanted” by the community, citing concerns over marine environment impacts, visual amenity, and a lack of transparent community consultation. Fishers and coastal residents are concerned about how turbine infrastructure might affect their livelihoods and ocean views.

Dutton was also pressed on the timeline, cost and safety of his nuclear plan. He admitted reactors were still 10 to 15 years away, declined to provide specific cost savings for households, and offered limited detail on nuclear waste handling, instead referencing Australia’s existing medical waste management and future plans for AUKUS submarine waste.

The visit, tightly controlled, was seen by critics as stage-managed. Labor, the Greens and union groups accused Dutton of peddling an unrealistic energy vision. The Electrical Trades Union released a statement labelling the plan as “too little power, too late, too expensive” and warned it would cost thousands of renewable jobs in the meantime.

Environmental groups and community advocates also raised concerns. While Dutton painted the offshore wind project as unwanted, others in the region have supported it as a practical step towards a cleaner energy mix and job creation in the near term.

Despite the backlash, some industry representatives in the Hunter appeared open to considering nuclear if it helped lower power costs and preserve heavy industry jobs. Still, the absence of concrete details during Dutton’s visit left many questions unanswered.