Nationals leader David Littleproud has firmly pointed to nuclear energy as the central issue behind his party’s dramatic departure from the Liberal Party in the wake of the Coalition’s devastating federal election loss. As both factions begin the challenging task of rebuilding, Littleproud’s emphasis on energy policy—especially nuclear—has become a clear line in the sand.
“Our party room has got to a position where we will not be re-entering a Coalition agreement with the Liberal Party […] Those positions that we couldn’t get comfort around [include] nuclear being a part of an energy grid into the future,” Littleproud told the media on Tuesday, solidifying the rift.
For years, the Nationals exerted significant influence over the Coalition’s energy strategy, championing a controversial plan to construct nuclear reactors at seven taxpayer-funded sites across Australia. But the tide of public opinion turned during the election, leading to internal debates within the Nationals about reconsidering their stance.
Some within the party leaned toward a strategic retreat—abandoning the reactor project and instead pushing to lift Australia’s longstanding federal ban on nuclear energy. But this pivot was far from unanimous. Several Nationals held firm to the original nuclear vision, even as internal pressure mounted.
Adding to the ideological divide, Nationals senator Matt Canavan publicly advocated for the abandonment of Australia’s net-zero emissions target, while fellow senator Bridget McKenzie doubled down on criticisms that renewable energy projects were doing real harm to regional communities.
Now operating independently from the Coalition agreement, the Nationals face a pivotal moment. Their future energy policy will come under scrutiny as they chart a path that reflects their distinct position, free from Liberal influence.
Despite the outcome of the election, Littleproud rejected the notion that maintaining the nuclear policy was a political miscalculation. He argued that public skepticism was largely driven by a coordinated “scare campaign”, rather than substantive policy concerns.
Still, even if the Coalition had secured victory, nuclear as a solution was already running out of time. A CSIRO analysis contradicted the Coalition’s optimistic timeline, showing that nuclear reactors initiated in 2025 likely wouldn’t produce electricity until 2037—too late to replace Australia’s aging fleet of coal-fired plants, most of which are scheduled to retire by 2035, with complete shutdown by 2040.
This timing misalignment has offered the Nationals a face-saving exit from the nuclear agenda. By acknowledging the logistical impossibility of integrating nuclear energy into the grid in time, they could have transitioned focus without appearing to concede defeat.
With nuclear out and coal on the decline, only two real alternatives remained: gas or renewables. Yet, expanding gas infrastructure—especially through fracking—faces fierce opposition and carries high costs. Gas is seen as a short-term, expensive bridge fuel rather than a core solution.
In contrast, renewables represent a more scalable, cost-effective pathway to clean energy. Yet, despite growing global and local momentum for solar, wind, and battery storage technologies, the Nationals remained reluctant to embrace them fully.
“Technology agnostic” is how Littleproud described his party’s current energy stance. In theory, this suggests a pragmatic, results-driven approach focused on reducing emissions efficiently, regardless of the source—whether nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, or even fossil fuels paired with carbon capture.
However, in practice, the Nationals have consistently prioritized nuclear and so-called “clean coal” over renewables. Their track record reveals a pattern of dismissing or undermining solar, wind, and battery innovations, often without clear justification.
Their resistance may partly stem from pressure exerted by anti-renewable lobbying groups, including the Institute of Public Affairs, which has worked to amplify rural opposition to clean energy and emissions cuts, especially in Nationals-held seats.
One such example is the Waubra Foundation, an organization critical of wind farms and falsely claiming health hazards. Founded by an oil and gas executive, it had no meaningful ties to the rural Victorian town it purported to represent, yet it still gained traction among skeptics.
In a revealing contrast, while some Nationals continue to rail against renewables, real-world evidence paints a different picture. Many farmers are profiting by hosting wind and solar infrastructure on their land, which often coexists with ongoing agricultural activity.
Concerns that renewable energy projects devalue neighboring properties have largely been disproven, and the escalating climate crises pose far greater risks to Australia’s agricultural sector than solar panels or wind turbines ever could.
Even so, the Nationals’ stance on net-zero emissions remained a contentious issue within the Coalition. While some members pushed for abandoning the 2050 target, this move would have alienated urban voters and hurt Australia’s international trade prospects—particularly around carbon tariffs on emissions-intensive exports.
Ultimately, the push to discard net-zero proved too politically and economically risky. The Liberals couldn’t back such a regressive shift, and the Nationals refused to compromise, leading to a deadlock that helped break apart the Coalition agreement entirely.
This leaves renewables as a critical—and perhaps inevitable—solution for rural communities, despite opposition from within the Nationals. Farmers who lease land for solar and wind gain not just income but resilience in the face of unpredictable climate conditions.
Senator Bridget McKenzie recently claimed renewable targets were harming regional communities, echoing long-standing party concerns. But these claims often overlook how clean energy can revitalize rural economies, providing both financial stability and environmental safeguards.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, during his election campaign, spoke with farmers who supported renewables, further highlighting the disconnect between Nationals leadership and their own constituents.
Despite internal party rifts and a fractured Coalition, one fact remains clear: Australia’s energy future is changing, and resisting that change may cost the Nationals more than just political capital. Their hostility to renewables could ultimately undermine the very communities they aim to protect.
Littleproud’s inability to reconcile these competing views within his party may have been the final straw, prompting the historic decision to walk away from the Coalition and forge an independent path.
As the dust settles, the Nationals now face the monumental task of redefining their identity and energy agenda—without the fallback of Coalition compromise, and under the spotlight of a rapidly transforming national energy landscape.
