How to take a position in PR

Clients often ask me for advice on what position they should take on an issue to secure media coverage.

Stakeholder mapping plays a big role. What might our competitors, partners and regulators say on the matter? What’s our risk-appetite for coverage?

Most of the time you land somewhere in the middle.

But focussing too much on what your competitors will say or what your stakeholders will think can leave great possibilities on the table.

Take the debate about nuclear energy in Australia, which I’ve written about previously. Australians will hear a lot about nuclear technology as the Opposition takes a policy of building seven government-owned nuclear power plants on the sites of Australia’s coal mines to the next election.

There has been an explosion of coverage about nuclear in Australia around Paris Commitments, construction delays and social licence. But the main event has been solar, wind and batteries on the one side, and nuclear on the other.

Everyone’s been focussing on the technology, no one is looking at the fact that Opposition Leader Peter Dutton wants these nuclear power to be government owned.

Australia’s electricity generation is mostly left to private investors with some state government ownership. Snowy Hydro is the only major exception to the rule, which is 100% owned by the Federal Government (it used to be split between the Commonwealth, NSW and Victoria). This is a reflection of Australia’s division of power between the Commonwealth and the states, which left energy mostly to the latter.

That’s not to say the federal government is not involved in energy, it’s is. But their role is mostly to guide private investment with policy, such as the Capacity Investment Scheme, which is designed to incentivise private operators to build a solar plant here, or a battery over there. The Commonwealth underwrites the losses to reduce risk on the developers, and shares in the profits if they make too much money. It’s a good idea. But it won’t be enough to reach net zero. The government will have to do more, a lot more.

Until Dutton’s nuclear proposal, the idea of major, direct federal government investment in energy generation assets was considered a somewhat fringe. No more, but you wouldn’t know that from reading the renewables vs nuclear debate. The ideas are still mostly bogged down in a technology debate.

My favourite bats**t crazy idea is the Federal Government could compulsorily acquire Australia’s coal generation assets, keep the gentailers on as operators.

All profits from those assets would be reserved to fund the government-owned batteries needed to replace the coal plants (you’d need more cash than that, but you get the idea), and the government would have full control over when they’re shut down.

If you think that’s an escalation in the debate you’re right, it is. There are probably better ideas out there. Let your imagination run wild. That’s what the Opposition did.