Who Really Broke Australia?
The Truth Peter Dutton Doesn't Want You to Know
The Australia I grew up in is disappearing. The promise of a fair go, the sense of stability, and the belief that if you worked hard, you could build a good life—it’s all fading. Wages are stagnating, housing is slipping out of reach, and the cost of living is crushing families. Life is harder now than it was for our parents, but instead of confronting the real causes, we are being fed dangerous lie after dangerous lie.
Peter Dutton and his political allies want Australians to believe that refugees, "lazy" young people, and so-called “woke” policies are to blame for the country’s decline. This is a convenient distraction, but it’s not the truth. The reality is that decades of neoliberal policies—championed by the Liberal Party and Australia’s loudest reactionaries—have systematically dismantled the security and opportunity that once defined this country. And if Dutton were to become Prime Minister, his leadership would only accelerate this decline.
From his reckless nuclear energy agenda to his failure to address the housing crisis, his history of dehumanizing refugees, and his budget rebuttal that offered fear instead of solutions, Dutton represents not a new direction for Australia, but a continuation of the policies that have made life harder for everyday Australians. This article will break down why his leadership would be disastrous—not because of culture wars or partisan bickering, but because the future of Australia depends on confronting the real forces driving inequality, and ensuring they are not handed even more power.
Peter Dutton is not a policymaker; he is a salesman of resentment. In the absence of meaningful solutions to Australia’s biggest crises—housing unaffordability, wage stagnation, and the rising cost of living—Dutton and his allies have chosen to redirect public frustration toward manufactured enemies. Their targets are predictable: refugees, migrants, and younger generations who refuse to accept a deteriorating economic landscape as their own personal failing.
This strategy is as transparent as it is effective. By blaming refugees for economic pressures, Dutton distracts from the fact that the root causes of these issues—soaring property prices, suppressed wages, and corporate tax loopholes—are the direct result of conservative economic policies. His recent claims that Australia’s migration levels are "out of control" and that an influx of new arrivals will further strain the housing market (Dutton, 2023) are not just misleading—they are deliberately designed to disguise the real culprits.
The reality is that refugees and migrants are not a financial burden but an economic engine. A 2019 study by the Treasury and the Department of Home Affairs found that refugees contribute more in tax revenue over their lifetime than they receive in government support, with second-generation refugee families typically exceeding the national average in income and employment rates (Treasury & Home Affairs, 2019). A Productivity Commission report further confirmed that skilled migration, including refugees who retrain or enter the workforce, is critical to Australia’s long-term economic growth, particularly in sectors suffering from chronic labour shortages (Productivity Commission, 2021). But these facts are inconvenient for Dutton’s brand of politics, which thrives on the myth of a zero-sum economy in which any gain for migrants is a loss for "real" Australians.
Just as he vilifies refugees, Dutton derides Millennials and Gen Z as lazy and entitled, ignoring the fact that his own party’s policies have structurally eroded economic opportunities for younger Australians. Home ownership, once a given for middle-class Australians, is now an unattainable dream for many, with property prices rising by over 400% in real terms since the early 1990s (CoreLogic, 2023). Wages, meanwhile, have stagnated for more than a decade, with real wage growth falling behind inflation year after year (Reserve Bank of Australia, 2023). It is not young people’s spending habits or work ethic that have left them financially stranded—it is the deliberate economic choices of leaders like Dutton, who continue to prioritise tax breaks for property investors over first-home buyers.
The myth that Australia’s economic decline is the fault of migrants or an "entitled" younger generation serves one purpose: to absolve those in power of responsibility. In reality, the issues driving Australia’s affordability crisis have been decades in the making and are the direct result of Liberal Party policies that Dutton has championed.
Nowhere is this clearer than in the housing market, where tax settings such as negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions have fuelled property speculation, driving prices far beyond the reach of ordinary Australians (Grattan Institute, 2022). These policies, designed to benefit existing property owners and investors, have systematically locked younger Australians out of home ownership while further concentrating wealth at the top. Yet, rather than addressing this policy failure, Dutton resorts to cheap scapegoating, insisting that high migration rates are the problem—despite the fact that housing supply has failed to keep pace with population growth for decades, long before recent migration surges (Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, 2022).
Similarly, wage stagnation—the defining economic feature of the past decade—has nothing to do with migration and everything to do with policy choices that have weakened workers' bargaining power. The Liberal Party’s systematic attack on unions, its expansion of insecure work, and its corporate tax cuts have all contributed to an environment where wage growth remains subdued, even as company profits soar (Australian Council of Trade Unions, 2023). Dutton, who served as a senior minister throughout this period, now claims to stand for "working Australians" while offering nothing in the way of policy to improve wages or job security.
Fear has long been the most valuable currency in conservative politics. When voters are angry, anxious, and uncertain about the future, they are more easily convinced to turn their frustration against perceived threats—real or imagined. This is a lesson Dutton learned from his predecessors, who have wielded fear with clinical precision to win elections and silence dissent.
The most infamous example of this tactic remains the 2001 Tampa Affair, when John Howard’s government turned the rescue of asylum seekers into a manufactured crisis. By framing these desperate individuals as a security threat, Howard secured an election victory on the back of nationalist sentiment, a move that permanently reshaped Australia’s immigration policies (Marr & Wilkinson, 2003).
Dutton has followed this blueprint almost to the letter. His fear-mongering over so-called "African gangs" in Victoria—a crisis that, according to Victoria Police, never existed (The Guardian, 2018)—was a textbook case of manufactured outrage, designed to stoke racial anxiety and push a law-and-order agenda. More recently, his warnings of an “uncontrolled” migration intake have sought to do the same, positioning migrants as economic threats despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
This is not policy-making; it is propaganda. And it is a tactic that only works if Australians allow themselves to be distracted from the real sources of their economic hardship.
Peter Dutton and his party claim to champion “aspiration,” yet under their watch, the great Australian dream of home ownership has transformed into an unattainable mirage. While young Australians are told to simply “work harder” or “cut back on luxuries,” the reality is that the deck has been stacked against them for decades. Successive Liberal governments, including the ones Dutton has been an integral part of, have treated housing not as a fundamental right, but as a speculative asset—ensuring that those who already own property amass greater wealth, while locking an entire generation out of the market.
The statistics are damning. In the 1990s, the average house cost about four times the median income. Today, that figure has ballooned to over ten times the median full-time wage in major cities like Sydney and Melbourne (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2023). Wages, meanwhile, have barely grown in real terms over the past decade (Reserve Bank of Australia, 2023). The government’s own Productivity Commission has acknowledged that the tax system actively incentivizes housing speculation rather than home ownership, with negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts disproportionately benefiting investors over first-home buyers (Productivity Commission, 2022). Yet, rather than tackling these issues, Dutton and his party have doubled down on the policies that created them.
In 2023, Dutton led the Coalition’s opposition to the Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF), a plan that—while flawed—was at least a step toward addressing the crisis. His reasoning? That it was too expensive. This sudden concern for economic restraint is particularly rich coming from a party that, while in government, oversaw $254 billion in tax concessions for property investors over a decade (Parliamentary Budget Office, 2022). Dutton’s alternative? More private sector incentives—the same trickle-down approach that has already failed generations of Australians.
The reality is that Dutton and his allies have no interest in fixing the housing crisis because they do not see it as a crisis. For them, it is a feature of the system, not a bug. In a country where almost 80% of wealth is tied up in property (Grattan Institute, 2023), high house prices benefit those who already own homes, and these people just happen to form a core part of the Liberal Party’s voter base. Maintaining this status quo requires ensuring that anger over housing affordability is never directed at those who profit from it. That is why, instead of offering genuine solutions, Dutton and his media allies spend their time fuelling culture wars—blaming migrants, zoning laws, or even young people themselves for the mess his party helped create.
Dutton’s stance on housing is not about ideology; it is about power. Every time his party blocks social housing investment or refuses to reform the tax system, they are making a choice—one that ensures property remains a lucrative investment for the few while keeping stable housing an impossible dream for the many. As long as Dutton remains at the helm, Australia’s housing crisis will not only persist—it will deepen.
If there is one thing Peter Dutton excels at, it is selling political snake oil. His latest pitch? That nuclear power is the silver bullet to Australia’s energy crisis. On the surface, it sounds compelling—cheap, clean, and efficient. The problem? It’s none of those things. Nuclear power is not only the most expensive form of energy generation, but also the slowest to implement. Dutton’s nuclear crusade is not a genuine energy policy; it is a deliberate attempt to stall Australia’s renewable energy transition while keeping the fossil fuel lobby happy.
The numbers make this clear. According to the CSIRO’s GenCost report (2023), nuclear power would cost more than double the price of renewables per megawatt hour. The upfront capital required for a single nuclear reactor is estimated at around $15 billion, with a minimum construction time of 15 years. By contrast, large-scale wind and solar farms can be built for a fraction of the price and in a matter of years. Even in pro-nuclear countries like the US and the UK, nuclear projects have been plagued by massive cost blowouts and delays. The UK’s Hinkley Point C, originally budgeted at £18 billion, has now soared past £35 billion with no clear completion date in sight (UK National Audit Office, 2023).
Dutton claims that nuclear will provide “baseload” energy stability, but that argument is decades out of date. The modern grid does not need 20th-century megaprojects; it needs flexible, scalable solutions like battery storage, pumped hydro, and grid interconnectors (Australian Energy Market Operator, 2023). Even conservative state governments in Australia have acknowledged this—Tasmania, for example, is investing in massive hydro and wind projects rather than nuclear. The reality is that nuclear is too expensive, too slow, and too politically fraught to be a viable option in Australia’s energy future.
Of course, none of this matters to Dutton. His push for nuclear is not based on economic or scientific reality—it is a political strategy. By promising a nuclear future, he gives the illusion of an alternative to renewables without having to directly attack coal and gas, industries that remain key donors to the Liberal Party. More importantly, it allows him to slow down the inevitable shift toward renewables by framing Labor’s clean energy transition as “reckless” and “ideological.” In this, he is following the well-worn path of climate denialists before him: delay action, protect industry profits, and manufacture doubt about proven solutions.
Dutton’s nuclear fantasy is not just bad policy; it is a dangerous distraction. Every year wasted debating its feasibility is a year in which Australia falls further behind in the global clean energy race. Meanwhile, households continue to face skyrocketing power bills, while corporate energy giants rake in record profits. The future of Australian energy is already clear to economists, engineers, and even the markets themselves. The only people who refuse to see it are those who have a vested interest in keeping the fossil fuel industry alive—and Peter Dutton is their loudest champion.
In politics, character is often dismissed as secondary to policy. But when a leader’s defining traits are cruelty, dishonesty, and an utter lack of accountability, character is policy. Peter Dutton has spent decades cultivating an image of toughness, but beneath the manufactured exterior lies a pattern of incompetence, arrogance, and a chilling disregard for the most vulnerable. If Australians want a glimpse into the kind of Prime Minister Dutton would be, they need only look at the wreckage of his past decisions.
Few politicians in modern Australian history have been as routinely mired in controversy as Dutton. From his infamous “laughing at climate refugees” scandal in 2015, where he mocked Pacific Island leaders over rising sea levels, to his repeated use of racist dog whistles, Dutton has consistently shown contempt for those outside his ideological bubble (ABC News, 2015). His track record as Minister for Home Affairs was particularly damning. Under his watch, the Department of Home Affairs became notorious for secrecy, mismanagement, and outright corruption. His handling of the au pair visa scandal—where he personally intervened to prevent the deportation of two foreign nannies linked to Liberal Party donors—exposed his blatant willingness to bend the rules for the well-connected while maintaining draconian policies for others (Guardian Australia, 2018).
But perhaps the most defining aspect of Dutton’s career has been his obsession with cruelty as a political weapon. His tenure as Minister for Immigration was marked by some of the most inhumane asylum policies in Australian history. While some of these policies were enacted before his time, Dutton’s approach was one of escalated punishment rather than reform. Under his leadership, the government fought to block a five-year-old refugee girl from receiving urgent medical care and refused to resettle asylum seekers who had been officially found to be genuine refugees by the UN (Human Rights Law Centre, 2018). His rhetoric on refugees has been equally appalling—repeatedly branding them as “illiterate” and a drain on welfare, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In fact, refugees are more likely to start businesses than the general Australian population and contribute significantly to the economy, with a net positive fiscal impact over time (Centre for Policy Development, 2019).
Even beyond policy, Dutton’s instincts are authoritarian. His push for expanded surveillance powers, his willingness to vilify entire communities for political gain (as seen in his “African gangs” fear campaign in Victoria), and his long-standing hostility toward transparency all paint the picture of a man deeply uncomfortable with democratic norms. His leaked comments in 2017, where he referred to female journalists as “mad witches,” were not just an offhand remark—they were an insight into his disdain for scrutiny (Sydney Morning Herald, 2017).
Australians have seen this kind of leadership before—leaders who rely on division, fear, and brute force rather than competence, vision, or integrity. The question is not whether Dutton is “too tough” or “too strong-willed” for the job. The real question is: if this is his record in opposition, what kind of Prime Minister would he be when given unchecked power?
Peter Dutton’s response to the Albanese government’s budget isn’t just political opposition; it is a deliberate exercise in economic denialism, one that ignores the very real challenges facing everyday Australians while offering no substantive solutions. When Dutton stands before the cameras, decrying Labor’s fiscal policies as wasteful and irresponsible, he conveniently forgets that his own party’s budget mismanagement is partly to blame for the financial mess Australia is in today.
Let’s break down the hypocrisy at the heart of Dutton’s critiques. In 2019, when the Coalition was in power, Australia’s budget was running at a record deficit while the government’s tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations went unchecked. The tax cuts alone amounted to $158 billion in lost revenue (Parliamentary Budget Office, 2020). Yet Dutton, who was a key player in the Coalition government during that period, now wants to lecture Labor on fiscal restraint. His criticisms of the 2023 budget’s spending are not based on sound economic principles, but rather a political tactic to paint Labor as irresponsible while offering no real alternative vision of his own. His response to the budget isn’t grounded in reality; it’s grounded in partisan politics and a desire to undermine the government without offering a comprehensive, feasible plan of his own.
Dutton’s obsession with slashing public spending, particularly in areas like social welfare and healthcare, mirrors the failed policies of the past. His proposal to further reduce welfare spending—while continuing to cut taxes for the wealthiest—reveals the true nature of his economic philosophy: that of a trickle-down capitalist who believes the economy will magically fix itself if the wealthy are allowed to keep more of their money. There is no evidence to support this theory, only years of rising inequality, stagnating wages, and growing social and economic disparity that stem directly from such policies (OECD, 2022).
Meanwhile, the Albanese government’s budget, while imperfect, includes key investments in infrastructure, healthcare, and social welfare aimed at lifting Australians out of economic hardship. Yes, it raises taxes on the top earners and corporations—steps that are long overdue, considering the vast wealth inequality that has ballooned under the Liberal party’s tenure. However, I cannot ignore the glaring contradiction in Albanese’s policy stance when it comes to international issues. Albanese's refusal to take a strong stance on the Palestinian issue, particularly his government's neglectful support for Israel in the face of atrocities in Gaza, tarnishes his credibility. By effectively allowing Australian taxpayers’ money to fund a genocide, Albanese has shown a chilling disregard for human rights on the global stage. This is where his leadership falters: he must balance domestic economic priorities with a strong commitment to justice and accountability on the world stage. By enabling a system that perpetuates violence against Palestinians, Albanese undermines the progressive values that his domestic policies claim to uphold.
However, under Peter Dutton’s leadership, the situation would undoubtedly worsen—not only for Australians, but for the people of Gaza. Dutton’s cult of personality-style politics, much like the populist, authoritarian rhetoric we see from leaders like Donald Trump, would likely fuel Australia’s complicity in global injustices. Dutton’s tough-on-security approach, coupled with his extreme nationalism, would mean that Australia’s support for Israel would likely become even more unyielding. With Dutton in power, Australia's role in perpetuating the suffering of Palestinians would undoubtedly increase, as he is far more likely to align with Israel’s military actions without question or moral consideration. Under a Dutton government, Australia would likely escalate its involvement in a conflict that has already caused immense human suffering and solidify its place in history as an active participant in this ongoing genocide.
As troubling as Albanese’s failure to hold Israel accountable is, at least his government’s approach is still somewhat open to diplomatic engagement. But under Dutton, the path forward would be one of uncritical alignment with Israel—an unrelenting, hawkish stance that would only embolden further violence and deepen Australia’s moral responsibility for the destruction of Gaza. The stark reality is that a Dutton-led government, with its echoing populism and ideological extremism, would worsen not only Australia’s domestic economic problems but also our moral standing on the global stage. His leadership would be a catastrophic escalation of the dangerous trajectory set by the Albanese government, one that would sacrifice Australia’s ethical obligations for the sake of political expediency.
Dutton’s budget rebuttal ignores the fact that, by any objective measure, the current government is tackling the systemic issues that the Liberals either failed to address or actively exacerbated. Rather than offering an alternative policy agenda or tangible solutions, Dutton simply slams the door on progressive reform in favor of outdated, proven-to-fail austerity measures that would further entrench inequality and deepen the struggles of ordinary Australians.
Dutton’s refusal to engage with the complexities of the current economic landscape—his insistence on framing the issue as one of irresponsible government spending—reflects a deeper ideological commitment to a form of politics that has never delivered for the Australian people. It’s a political strategy rooted in denial: deny the existence of inequality, deny the need for welfare, and deny the undeniable reality that, in a country as rich as Australia, the ongoing economic struggles of the working and middle classes are the direct result of policies championed by Dutton’s own party. This is the same disconnected, insular approach that would define his leadership if given the opportunity—one that overlooks the lived experiences of everyday Australians in favor of maintaining a system that privileges the few over the many.
Peter Dutton's leadership style is unmistakably tied to one of the most dangerous trends in modern politics: the cult of personality. It's a tactic used by autocratic leaders to consolidate power, craft a direct, personal connection with the people, and, most importantly, reduce accountability. Dutton is no exception to this populist playbook. His political persona is as much about branding himself as the “tough guy” who will stand up to foreign threats and "defend Australian values" as it is about ignoring the fundamental principles that are supposed to underpin democratic leadership—checks and balances, transparency, and respect for the rule of law.
Much like figures such as Donald Trump and Viktor Orbán, Dutton seeks to position himself as the ultimate defender of national security, often at the expense of civil liberties and democratic norms. His appeal is built not on nuanced policy proposals or a comprehensive vision for Australia’s future but on the reduction of political discourse to simple, binary oppositions: Dutton versus “the enemies” of Australia. This divisive rhetoric is purposefully engineered to distract from real issues and push the narrative that any opposition to him is a betrayal of national security or an alliance with foreign threats.
This style of politics is both toxic and undermining to the democratic process. It diminishes the complexity of issues, reduces the role of debate and dialogue, and shifts the focus onto a single leader as the embodiment of national will. It’s a form of “cultivated authoritarianism”, where Dutton would position himself not as a servant of the people, but as their savior. This is no longer about representing diverse interests and making nuanced policy decisions; it’s about aligning Australia’s future with the whims of a single, often self-serving leader, who—like many populists—shapes policy to consolidate his power and authority rather than serve the collective good.
One need only look at his polarizing and aggressive stances on issues like national security. In his position as the Home Affairs Minister, Dutton embraced draconian measures like the expansion of surveillance powers and the criminalization of dissent. His enthusiasm for overreach—particularly on issues of security and immigration—suggests a deep disregard for the liberties that underpin a healthy democracy. This authoritarian impulse would only intensify if he were to take the reins as Prime Minister.
In stark contrast to the collaborative nature of democratic leadership, Dutton’s appeal lies in direct, autocratic control. The message is clear: “Trust me, because I know what’s best for the country.” But democracy requires more than the unchecked power of any single individual, no matter how charismatic or forceful they may be. Checks and balances, the strength of opposition parties, and an independent media are essential to ensuring that governments remain accountable to the people. Under Dutton, these mechanisms would likely be threatened.
Indeed, the real danger of a Dutton government lies in its emphasis on populism over institutional integrity. His style of leadership has been marked by simplistic solutions that disregard the broader implications for human rights, civil liberties, and democratic norms. His ability to appeal to fear and anger—whether in relation to terrorism, immigration, or the "war on wokeness"—sows division, undermines national cohesion, and fosters an environment in which radical ideas and extreme policies are normalized.
A Dutton-led government would present a fundamental shift in Australian democracy, where debate and dialogue are exchanged for divisive rhetoric and heavy-handed policies designed to serve the interests of the elite few while stoking fear and insecurity in the broader population. His hyper-nationalist rhetoric, combined with his authoritarian instincts, would likely create a political culture where dissent is demonized, opposition parties are vilified, and public trust in democratic institutions is eroded.
The danger of a leader like Dutton, whose political style mirrors that of the global populist wave, is that Australia's democratic foundations would be further undermined. We have already seen his predecessors weaken these pillars, but under Dutton’s watch, the shift could be irreversible. His ability to rally the masses with “us versus them” rhetoric—whether it’s refugees, young people, or political opponents—would foster a society where the individual freedoms of all Australians are overshadowed by a single, dominant ideology that leaves no room for disagreement. The emergence of authoritarian populism, once it gains a foothold, is insidious and hard to reverse.
In this respect, Dutton’s rise to power is not just a political misstep but a dangerous turn toward authoritarianism. The true threat posed by a Dutton government is not just his policy proposals but his attempt to reshape Australia’s very political identity—one that privileges personal control over democratic ideals, fear over reason, and division over unity. The real loss, should he ever become Prime Minister, will be not just in policy, but in the erosion of the democratic values that have long been central to Australia’s political system.
In examining Peter Dutton’s record and political ideology, it becomes glaringly clear that his vision for Australia is rooted in dangerous conservatism, authoritarian instincts, and backward-looking policies that fail to address the real challenges facing the country. Whether it’s the scapegoating of refugees, the destruction of democratic norms through his cult of personality, or the reckless pursuit of nuclear power, Dutton’s leadership represents a step backward for Australia—a regression into a more divisive, more authoritarian, and ultimately more unstable future.
Australia is already struggling with critical issues such as housing affordability, wage stagnation, and climate change. Dutton’s continued support of policies that entrench inequality, fuel fear-based politics, and fail to invest in progressive, long-term solutions will only make these problems worse. His approach to the housing crisis, his insensitivity to the environmental dangers of nuclear power, and his disregard for the humanity of refugees make it clear that under Dutton’s leadership, the needs of everyday Australians will continue to be ignored in favor of corporate interests and populist rhetoric.
But perhaps most chilling is the danger Dutton poses to Australian democracy itself. His cult of personality is a tool of division and control, turning citizens into subjects of a man who believes he alone holds the answers to the nation’s problems. In this respect, his leadership would not just represent a failure of policy, but a betrayal of the values upon which Australia was built—values of fairness, inclusivity, and democratic integrity.
While the current government under Albanese may have its faults—particularly when it comes to its negligence on issues like Palestine and Israel’s actions in Gaza—the truth remains that under Dutton’s leadership, Australia’s moral compass would veer even further from the direction of justice and human rights. The consequences of his brand of politics would not only tarnish Australia’s international reputation but would also deeply harm the social fabric of the country itself.
In the end, it is clear that Dutton’s Australia is not one we can afford—an Australia where fear is weaponized, democratic values are abandoned, and the most vulnerable are abandoned in favor of divisive rhetoric. For the sake of Australia’s future, we must reject this authoritarian vision and instead strive for a nation that prioritizes compassion, progressive values, and true democratic leadership.
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2020). Population Projections, Australia, 2020 to 2066. Retrieved from https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/population-projections
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2023). Labour Force, Australia, December 2022. Retrieved from https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/labour-force/labour-force-australia
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. (2022). Australia’s aid program: Humanitarian and refugee support. Retrieved from https://www.dfat.gov.au/aid
Grattan, M. (2021). Australia's housing crisis: The policies, the people, and the future. The Grattan Institute. Retrieved from https://grattan.edu.au/report/
Miller, D. (2019). The Refugee Economy: The Impact of Refugees on Australia’s Economic Future. Australian National University Press. ISBN 978-1-76046-485-9.
National Institute of Economic and Industry Research. (2022). The Economic Contribution of Refugees to Australia’s Economy. Retrieved from https://www.nieri.org.au/publications
Tull, K. (2021). The Rise of Authoritarian Populism in Australia: Implications for Democracy. University of Melbourne Press. ISBN 978-0-7329-4160-7.
Van Onselen, P. (2023). The Liberal Party’s Record on Housing: A Historical Overview. Australian Journal of Political Economy, 58(2), 104-120.
Wilson, B. (2022). Nuclear Energy in Australia: A Dangerous Path Forward. Environment and Energy Review, 36(4), 118-134.
Zubrin, R. (2021). The Geopolitics of Nuclear Energy: Australia’s Dangerous Path. Foreign Affairs Quarterly, 42(3), 27-45.
