Nothing. The entire context is absurd to say the least.
Australia is one of the most affluent countries in world history and hyper resource rich.
They should have a third of their energy supply coming from nuclear.
Nuclear is expensive (commonly said)? So what. Australia is hyper rich ($67k GDP per capita) and can afford to do it and can afford to subsidize it for consumers. What's a lot more expensive (risk) is having a weak, unreliable grid with a poor diversity of energy sources.
It's insane not to subsidize nuclear, if one believes even the calmer side of environmental warnings re climate change. It's extremely potent energy technology, we know how to build it, and we know we can keep improving on it yet.
Besides this, it's politically unteniable. Australia even just famously arranged to purchase US nuclear-powered subs - which require enriched fuel - without any capability to produce it or any intention of creating that capability. Their entire heavy maintenance and repower will need to and is planned to occur in the US.
