So no Hinkley Point C for Australia.
The debate moved from safety to economics. The economics only worked if you wanted to continue gas and coal for two more decades.
7 nuclear sites in an economy with only a swimming pool reactor for research and nuclear medicine, projecting the most favourable cost of construction worldwide.
Most people saw this as cynical, a move by coal and gas mining interests.
Is nuclear energy safe and useful? Probably. It was a terrible fit for this economy. It should have started 40 years ago.
Possibly, arguably this is why the LNP lost but mostly I think, Trump cost them the election. This nuclear thing was a classic city country divide: a lot of mining, fly in fly out heavy engineering workers liked it. City dwellers Not.
A "bold but unpopular vision" for nuclear or was it just bullshit?
I'd go for the latter, so Australia wasn't getting nuclear either way.
What they had a chance for, and may now get, is vaguely sensible policy to continue their renewable rollout which is, in some aspects, world leading.