How nuclear power plant neighbours could be in for a cash windfall: Peter Dutton reveals specific details of his energy plan - as the seven Aussie sites are named

Peter Dutton's proposal includes a clause to offer residents who live near the sites of future nuclear reactors discounted energy bills.

This would serve as an incentive for voters to get behind the plans.

Tenants living within the zone of each power plant 'will pay lower wholesale electricity prices and avoid network costs because they will have direct power connection to the plant,' the proposal states.

The impacted regions have been identified as Lithgow and the Hunter Valley in NSW, Traralgon in Victoria, Mount Murchison and Tarong in Queensland, Port Augusta in South Australia and Collie in Western Australia.

Mr Dutton reassured the public that these sites are 'the only locations in scope'.

'The Coalition has ruled out all other locations.'

In addition to the financial incentive, Mr Dutton's plan guarantees 'thousands of high paying jobs for coal power station workers', vowing to 'inject millions of dollars into the local economy for up to 100 years'.

Peter Malinauskas has become the first state premier to offer a mixed response to Mr Dutton's nuclear pitch.

The South Australian premier said nuclear power 'has an important role to play in the global energy mix as we pursue a decarbonised future'.

But he wouldn't go so far as to endorse the policy.

In fact, he expressed concerns about Mr Dutton's refusal to engage in discussions about how much his plan will cost.

He said it was standard to announce costings during these sorts of conferences, adding: 'That means one of two things. Either Peter Dutton knows how much it’s going to cost and he’s refusing to tell people.

'Or, he’s making a massive policy commitment without knowing how much it’s going to cost. Either way, it’s an extraordinary position.'

Mr Malinauskas said reports had time and time again indicated pursuing nuclear power in Australia now would make power more expensive for Australian households.

'So why on Earth would we pursue it?' he asked.

North Sydney MP Kylea Tink, whose seat is set to be abolished at the next election, has come out swinging against Mr Dutton's proposal.

She said: 'Peter Dutton’s nuclear policy is dangerous, deluded and divisive – and will cost Australian taxpayers dearly.

'The cost of this proposal will be in the hundreds of billions, with each reactor costing at least $16 billion according to the CSIRO. Peter Dutton has also not explained how much it will cost to purchase these seven sites from their current owners. These costs will all be borne by Australian taxpayers. 'Peter Dutton’s policy will also inevitably lead to higher energy bills for Australians, extend the life of coal in Australia, and delay the progress we are making to build an economy powered by clean, cheap and abundant renewable energy.

'This policy is about nothing more than the Coalition playing politics and protecting the Dutton Opposition’s fossil fuel mates. It is not a serious energy or climate policy and should be treated as such.'

Nationals deputy leader Perin Davey has told Sky News the Coalition would dump a proposed site if the community were deadset against it.

Mr Dutton and Nationals leader David Littleproud did not comment on this when asked about community support in the press conference, nor is this mentioned in the nuclear pamphlet.

She said: 'If a community is absolutely adamant, then we will not proceed (with that site).'

Ms Davey said the Coalition would not seek to move the reactor to a new site if it were not to proceed in one of the seven earmarked regions.

Mr Dutton's proposal dismisses any concerns about the safety of nuclear energy.

'Modern nuclear power plants with the latest technology are incredibly safe,' the proposal states.

'The technology is safe enough for our international partners such as the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and France.

'The technology is safe enough for Australian Defence Force personnel who will shortly be operating nuclear propelled submarines under the AUKUS agreement.

'The technology is safe enough for residents of Lucas Heights in Sydney, who have lived and worked around an operating reactor since 1958.'

Peter Dutton will try to win voters over on nuclear energy by arguing that we have already embraced nuclear in other aspects of life.

He said a nuclear reactor is already operating in western Sydney, which creates vital, life-saving medicine, and noted that Australia has procured nuclear propelled submarines as part of the AUKUS deal.

Australia will not rely on nuclear as its sole energy provider in a Dutton-led future, but a combination of renewables, gas and nuclear.

Mr Dutton said this 'balanced energy mix' is a common-sense way to reduce electricity prices. He hasn't provided any specific cost analysis backing up that statement, but noted it has been 'proven all over the world'.

'Zero-emissions nuclear energy will complement renewables and gas to get prices down and keep the lights on as we decarbonise,' he said.

He said it is important to note that the nuclear reactors will be owned by the government - a proposal which poses another hurdle for the government.

As it stands, the sites earmarked for development are privately owned, and several have already said they have no intention to allow their sites to turn nuclear.

The Opposition Leader also guaranteed his proposal would 'create thousands of high-paying jobs for generations to come' and 'inject millions into the local economy for up to 100 years'.

Chris Bowen has slammed Mr Dutton's 'undercooked' announcement today.

He is calling on the Opposition Leader to 'explain why he won’t be upfront and honest with Australians about how much this is going to cost'.

'Peter Dutton and the Coalition’s undercooked announcement has left more questions than answers, hiding details on how much taxes and bills would rise, and on the size of their seven risky reactors,' he said.

​'These are the facts: Nuclear energy is too slow to keep the lights on, too expensive to build and too risky for Australia’s energy needs.

​'Even under their own optimistic scenario, the Coalition confirmed today they won’t get their first nuclear reactor up and running until 2035 to 2037, risking 13 years of rolling black outs as they abandon reliable renewables.'

Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie described the proposal as a 'smokescreen for its commitment to climate pollution' and a 'clear case of radioactive greenwashing'.

'The winners from this scheme are the multinational coal and gas corporations who will keep polluting until well past mid-century. On the other hand, as a result of this scheme, Australians will suffer from worsening unnatural disasters due to climate pollution.

'Communities are being pummelled by heatwaves and dangerous bushfires one week, and extreme rainfall and flooding the next.

'Dutton’s scheme is: let the climate burn, let the mega fires burn, let the sea levels rise, let the heat become unbearable.'

And Solutions for Climate Australia director Dr Barry Traill said 'nuclear reactors are not a plan for climate, they’re a fantasy that serves to delay and distract from getting on with climate action.

'This shows a huge failure of leadership by Mr Dutton to come up with a plan to keep Australians safe.'

Throughout the hour-long press conference, Mr Dutton made several references to 'Labor and those green millionaires' who stand opposed to nuclear energy.

By doing so, he drew a clear line in the sand and offered an insight into how he plans to win this battle.

'There are so many people conflicted in this space because they're investors in clean energy or a particular technology. I'm agnostic to all that,' he said.

'I want to deliver a system which will bring prices down and help pensioners keep their heating on. I want to keep small business alive.

'I can't stand the thought that in a country with an abundance of national resource we're paying the highest electricity prices in the world.'

But Mr Dutton accused the Labor party and Greens of having ulterior motives to rejecting his proposal.

He said: 'Of course, the Labor Party and those green millionaires we were talking about before, who have made their money off the backs of electricity prices going up and people paying more - they’ll come out with a scare campaign.

'I want a mature conversation in our country.'

Mr Dutton argued that out of the world's 20 largest economies, Australia 'is the only one not using nuclear energy or moving towards it'.

The Coalition cited nuclear energy policies which are either in place or committed to in the United States, France, Canada, China, Brazil, Russia, Switzerland, Mexico, Japan, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom.

Pictured: An infographic from the Coalition's new website providing information on nuclear

Nationals leader David Littleproud said despite the differences in opinion about Australia's energy future, the Coalition still remains committed to net zero by 2050.

He said Australia will still meet its obligations to the Paris Agreement under the Coalition's nuclear proposal, despite failing to acknowledge interim targets.

'I'll just say while the ideology of our Teal members - I don't disagree.

'We're all on the same journey. It's just how we get there.'

On the back of Labor's loss with the Indigenous Voice referendum, Mr Dutton has invoked the term during his speech.

He said: 'I'm very happy for the election to be a referendum on energy, on nuclear, on power prices, on lights going out, on who has a sustainable pathway for our country going forward.'

'If the Labor Party chooses a leader with back bone, somebody like Bob Hawke, as opposed to their current leader, then we'd have a mature debate about this,' he said.

'But the Prime Minister wants to put out photos of fish and pictures of beaches and pretend in his nirvana that the wind turbines spin around when the wind is not blowing. And he pretends that the solar panels can work of a night time.

'We need a Prime Minister who can stand up for our country. And this Prime Minister can't do that.'

'I’m not interested in lining the pockets of rich green millionaires, I want to bring down the price of electricity for average mums and dads.

'If we look at the international experience, let me answer that question because if international experience as we know, electricity is cheaper where there is a presence of nuclear energy.

'That is the fact. So we can rely on the international experience.'

'We are going to the next election seeking a mandate from the Australian people, a very clear mandate that we want support to modernise our energy system.

'That’s the mandate that we seek and that’s the mandate that I believe that we will act on the Parliament and we will work with the premiers in a constructive way.'

Dutton has refused to go into detail today about the cost of his proposal, arguing that today is simply about revealing the proposed locations.

'As we know the government’s transition [will cost] about $1.2 - $1.5 trillion and that will be passed to consumers.

'Our proposal will cost a fraction of that, we will have more to say in relation to the cost in due course and as you know we’ve done this in a step-by-step process.

'The focus today is on the sites.'

But Mr Dutton said international experience indicates that nuclear energy will always be cheaper than the alternative.

David Littleproud said today is a 'proud day for the Nationals', who have long championed the benefits of nuclear energy.

He said a nuclear approach moving forward is a 'win for the regions' and will be the legacy of the Coalition if they win the next election.

'It's time for strength and leadership, time for the Coalition to take over to lead our nation away from this madness of renewables approach.'

'We need to ensure hospitals can stay on 24/7, we need to ensure that cold rooms can stay on 24/7, we need to make sure that our economy could function 24/7 and we can only do that with a strong baseload power.

'I want to make sure that the Australian public understand today that we have a vision for our country to deliver cleaner electricity, cheaper electricity and consistent electricity.

'This is a plan for our country which will underpin a century of economic growth and jobs for these communities.

'There is no sense of pretending that our economy can operate without the stable energy system and our plan today which will include these seven sites is integral to the energy roadmap for our country into the future.

'The assets will be owned by the Commonwealth, very important point, and work with experts to deliver these programs.'

Mr Dutton took a swipe at the Premiers who have already announced they won't support nuclear.

'We'll work with the state premiers, some debate about that I see, as you know, somebody famously said I would not stand between the Premier and a bucket of money.

'We've seen the premiers in different debates before where they've been able to negotiate with the Commonwealth and will be able to address those issues.'

Both Chris Minns in NSW and Jacinta Allan in Victoria have this morning doubled down on their states' nuclear bans, in spite of Peter Dutton's impending announcement.

'Our ban stays in place, we’re not repealing it. I’d be surprised if the NSW Liberal and National party want to repeal it as well,' Mr Minns said.

And Ms Allan was adamant there would be no nuclear sites in Victoria while she remained premier.

'They want to bring more expensive, more risky, more toxic energy solutions to the people of this country. We won’t stand for that. We absolutely will not stand for that,' she said.

'What works is exactly what we’re doing now. investing in renewable energy, solar in wind and battery storage.'

In spite of Mr Dutton's best efforts, reported details of his nuclear proposal are starting to trickle out.

NSW, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia are all earmarked for nuclear reactor sites if the Coalition wins the next election.

Lithgow and the Hunter Valley are the proposed NSW sites, Mount Murchison and Tarong in Queensland and Traralgon in Victoria.

Mr Dutton proposes one site in South Australia in Port Augusta, and another in Collie in WA.

He hopes to have at least two up and running by 2037, with the first set to be established in 2035 - 11 years away.

All of the sites which have been identified are within Coalition-held seats.

Sussan Ley appeared on Sky on Wednesday morning where she promoted the impending nuclear energy announcement.

'Let's face it, policy in this country around energy under this government is an absolute trainwreck.

'We are paying the highest electricity prices in the world. You've just noted on your program, that today is the coldest day so far this year.

'There will be Australians who are choosing between heating and eating.'

Climate warrior Simon Holmes à Court has issued a series of 18 questions he says Mr Dutton must answer if he wants the Australian public to support nuclear energy.

Mr Holmes à Court has a ­Climate 200 fund which backed the 'Teal' independents in the last election - many of whom snatched previously safe Liberal seats in affluent parts of Sydney.

He wants to know:

- Where nuclear reactors will be located

- How the Coalition intends to remove state bans given nuclear is currently banned in Victoria, NSW and Queensland

- What will happen if locals object

- When will the reactors begin generating power

- How much will they cost

- How will the waste be managed

- Who will provide disaster insurance

- What will be the emissions impact

He said: 'Without good answers to the questions above, the Coalition cannot be taken seriously.

'Any plan that has us paying more and blowing our carbon budget is a toxic joke.'

Peter Dutton will hold a joint press conference at 10am to make his pitch to the Australian public.

It is understood he'll be joined by Nationals leader David Littleproud, and Liberal deputy leader Sussan Ley.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers on Wednesday trashed Mr Dutton's nuclear ambitions, describing it as 'economic insanity, pure and simple'.

Dr Chalmers told ABC Radio: 'Nuclear takes longer, it costs more, and it will squander Australia’s unique combination of advantages. It is the worst combination of economic and ideological stupidity.'