Between a rock and a hard place, Labor is confused on nuclear and uranium mining.

The Labor movement (Federally and at WA State level) is tying itself in knots; try to ideologically justify banning nuclear reactors and uranium mining while at the same time benefiting from their use.

It is not always easy to distinguish against the policies of the Australian Greens and Labor when it comes to core nuclear views. Labor, driven by their ideological faction, present as Hard Left on various of the nuclear topics. If you look at their policy or media pronouncements, nuclear will not help Climate Change (most of the world would disagree, including the United Nations!); and is inextricably linked across the value chain with nuclear weapons. In addition to the ”unsolvable” solution of nuclear waste, the “weapons and waste” mantra is used to justify their hardcore policy position. Knowing that this ideological fundamentalism does not sell well to the majority of the voting base, at times Labor tries to dress up their ideological objections in economics; however most, if not all, can see the bigger picture. For example, Energy Minister Bowen claims it is financial considerations not ideology that is the basis for his objection to nuclear, yet he supports the offshore wind industry that, even on the CSIRO"s much maligned GenCost numbers, is more expensive on a firmed basis than nuclear and shares common drawbacks such as lead times and being first of a kind (FOAK) in Australia.

However. Things are starting to crack. Labor’s willingness to bend its ideological objections in certain situations highlights how truly empty those justifications really are. You see, nuclear reactors are used for a broad range of applications; and whilst the applications differ, the ideological objections used by Labor are common across these different use cases. And this causes all sorts of problems when you try to run a consistent thread of logic through this policy platform.

To start with, lets examine the critical issue of nuclear medicine, involving the use of various radioisotopes for diagnostic or treatment purposes, or additionally for the sterilisation of medical instruments. Most Australians in their lifetime will have the need for, and benefit from, nuclear medicine. Anyone that has a relative, friend or colleague that has been diagnosed with or treated for cancer – and lets face it, that is basically the entire Australian population – is in this bucket.

So where do our leftists think these lifesaving radioisotopes are manufactured? The vast majority of them are manufactured in a nuclear reactor. There is no alternative.

Far from being “without a nuclear industry” as is often the mistaken belief from those Australians that oppose nuclear technology, Australia is actually a world leader in nuclear medicine and hence radiation safety that is all part of running world class nuclear facilities. The OPAL reactor at ANSTO, in southern Sydney, currently supplies approx 25% of global demand for the world’s most commonly used medical isotope, Molybdenum-99 (or Mo-99 for short). And the facility could further scale to produce an even higher proportion should the global situation require it. Each week, ANSTO delivers > 11,000 doses of life-saving nuclear medicine from Lucas Heights to over 250 hospitals and medical practices across Australia and internationally.

That’s right, Australia exports our core nuclear products and capabilities across the globe; products and expertise which save thousands upon thousands of lives every year through treatment or early diagnosis.

Mo-99 is very much an issue of international strategic importance; where one of the other major producers is Russia. With political bifurcation occurring across the nuclear value chain; like minded countries are turning to Australia to fulfil their isotope needs; preferring to limit their strategic reliance on Russia. This is a trend that is expected to continue in the medium to long term; with the recent US ban on the importation of enriched nuclear fuel from Russia demonstrating that bifurcation is here to stay.

Lets not be cynical, lets accept that Labor don’t want to deprive thousands of patients of life saving medical treatment. Inherent in that assumption is an implied recognition is that somewhere in the collective Labor mindset there must be some sort of “good” nuclear reactors. And, as soon as you accept there are reactors worth having around, you must accept there is a place for the mining of the uranium necessary to fuel them.

The problem is, all of the ideological objections that are put forward by the anti-nuclear brigade cannot distinguish between the “good” nuclear which inherently they accept are required, and the “bad” nuclear which they feel somehow, deep down, they must oppose. “All reactors are associated with nuclear weapons”, and “OMG what do we do about the waste?” are key aspects of anti-nuclear rhetoric espoused by both Labor and the Greens; without providing any “ideological wriggle room” for an exception for nuclear medicine. Why not? Because the minute they accept, for example, that nuclear waste can indeed be managed even from a reactor producing radioisotopes or that you can have any nuclear reactor without an inevitable jump to nuclear weapons, the whole value system on which their objection to the industry is based falls away.

Let’s continue on the nuclear journey. Australia has relatively recently decided to acquire a nuclear submarine capability through AUKUS. Initially a Liberal initiative, it is now championed by the Labor Government, arguably at loggerheads with the ideological wishes of the Left. (Perhaps because the AUKUS programme continues to be an extremely popular policy). Now lets not suggest for a minute that AUKUS is without risk - there are many commentators who strongly believe in the strategy of Australia obtaining nuclear submarines, but are worried about the AUKUS structure itself and whether it can be effectively delivered. Instead of simply trying to bilaterally undertake a technology transfer from one partner, trying to cherry pick the best of the technologies from the US and the UK - who both have nuclear submarines but operate under quite different doctrines - might sound good as press release but undoubtedly adds complexity to an otherwise already incredibly difficult project.

Regardless of the concerns about structure, WA will be a key beneficiary of AUKUS, with half of the national fleet to be home ported at Garden Island, near Perth. The supporting economic activity is projected to create thousands of new jobs, a fact not lost on the WA government, who ?have recently signed an agreement with Huntington Ingalls, the builder of the US Virginia-class submarine, the model of nuclear-powered submarine Australia is expected to purchase. The press release states this “will greatly assist the State Government in the creation of high paying, skilled jobs at the AMC at Henderson, as well as at HMAS Stirling, for decades to come”. Pretty good idea, especially given the significant jobs pressure in WA at the moment driven by a structural downturn in nickel and lithium. And this project is barreling along - infrastructure works are already occurring as modifications and expansions are being prepared to host the subs. And the effects are already been felt in teh local community with jobs, spend, and of course locals in the area complaining about increased traffic and inadequate planning.

Inherent once again in Federal and State Labor embracing of AUKUS is that this must be an example of another form of “acceptable” nuclear reactor. Nuclear medicine, tick. Reactor connected to a propellor for a sub, ok!. So what about a nuclear reactor connected to a turbine to produce zero carbon baseload electricity? Woah, hold on there a minute! According to Chris Bowen, that one is "Risky". And what about mining the fuel source for those reactors, uranium?

In preparing for the arrival of the first sub in Perth from 2027, the WA Government has been ensuring we have the nuclear skills necessary to service these amazing, complex machines. They are crowing that WA will become a major player in the nuclear submarine industry. Catch phrases? of “diversifying our economy”, “thousands of highly skilled local jobs, “building the workforce of the future” are peppered throughout press releasees. Indeed, they are already advancing plans for a nuclear waste storage facility to be built in Perth; outright admitting that the waste issue is not as unsolvable as many on the left might have you believe.

You would be forgiven to think that we lived in a pro nuclear, pro uranium mining jurisdiction. And the fact is, we do, from the people’s perspective.

And this is where we get to uranium. Labor ideology at the outset screams no nuclear. Yet uncomfortably must accept that uses for medicine are OK; although that doesn’t sit well with their recent anti nuclear scare campaigns. Almost every day, Climate Minister Chris Bowen and Perth member Patrick Gorman have been running a scare campaign based on site selection - will you end up with a scary reactor in your backyard?

While a civilian nuclear reactor is deemed "scary" or "risky", they have further decided to accept nuclear technology to help pursue Australia’s national interest (in Defence). On one hand, Gorman states how exciting it is to have AUKUS jobs and stability and growth coming to WA, and then five minutes later he is featuring in a classic scare campaign in front of a magnetic map of Australia, throwing little magnetic cooling tower images over various jurisdictions. This performance was so comedic it reminded me of comedy legend Steve Martin's character Harris K. Telemarcher in cult movie LA Story.

Chris Bowen screams that nuclear waste cannot be managed ("What about the waste?!" is one of his favourite lines), except its not so hard when they then decide to manage it for AUKUS. They accept that its in Australia’s national interest (and its our moral obligation) to help reduce the emissions of our trading partners – which is the argument that the WA Premier is using to justify allowing previously banned exports of gas from WA. But they can’t (yet) accept that same argument which applies much more strongly to the export of uranium.

WA (and Australia more broadly) is at the forefront of the global mining industry, blessed with the largest resources of uranium globally, in a highly strategically aligned political position with respect to the need for western friendly uranium; and blessed with a highly capable workforce who, according to polling, are keen to mine uranium.

It is time for our politicians to stop listening simply to the loudest and most extreme voices on the Left. It is also incumbent on the silent majority, or the younger generation to speak up and let your local members or union leaders know your priorities. Let them know whether you are worried about job security; whether you do think WA should help out the rest of the world when it comes to decarbonisation; that uranium mining is a logical first step towards building out the future nuclear industry in the State, a future that is fast approaching with the implementation of AUKUS.

Even Labor inherently acknowledge the benefits of a uranium and nuclear industry. Now they just need to find a way to admit it to themselves. The rest of us are ready.

Jonathan Fisher is the CEO of Cauldron Energy, an ASX listed (ASX:CXU) uranium explorer with a uranium project located in WA. Jonathan regularly writes content on the topics of the Uranium mining ban in WA; as well as the Federal debate around potential nuclear reactors for civilian power generation in Australia. Follow Jonathan on X (@cxuasx) or on LinkedIn to stay up to date with the latest instalments.