Crikey has done a deep dive into the ‘independent’ modelling the Coalition has been touting for its nuclear plan, and well, shockingly (you know how this ends)

Also in question – when and if the Coalition will declare this ‘gift’ as a donation-in-kind with the AEC. (I have asked around and modelling isn’t cheap)

Here is part of Daanyal Saeed‘s reporting:

The Coalition’s much-vaunted nuclear modelling was — despite Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s insistence it was “independent” analysis — created by a… think tank that has a cosy relationship with Nuclear for Australia, a lobby group with its own links to the Liberal Party. 

Frontier Economics was the economic advisory firm responsible for the Coalition’s nuclear modelling and projected that the policy would cost an estimated $331 billion and involve the commissioning of seven nuclear reactors. 

While Dutton said that Frontier “refused to take any money” when asked to model the plan by the Coalition, and Frontier in the report states that it was funded and directed solely by Frontier Economics, the issue of whether the work constitutes a “gift”, and the actual independence of the work, is still live. 

In January this year, Frontier managing director Danny Price gave an extended interview to pro-nuclear lobby group Nuclear for Australia, where Frontier is described as a “non-partisan” and “pro-nuclear” organisation. 

Nuclear for Australia has recently been reminded by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) of its legal obligations to authorise its electoral material after running thousands of dollars worth of online advertising in support of policies promoted by the Coalition. Teenage founder Will Shackel has previously denied that the Liberal Party is backing the group, despite a number of reported links to the organisation. 

Crikey contacted the Coalition, Frontier Economics and the AEC about the status of the work as a gift and whether the work had been disclosed. 

Really good to see journalists take a look behind some of these claims. While it is not necessarily Watergate, this sort of thing SHOULD be on the public record.