Conservative opposition are pushing heavily for nuclear energy in a country that has more access to renewables than almost any other.
And what happens is that the arguments over why you need it, where the reactors would be placed etc. are causing doubts from investors that long term, bi-partisan support for renewables exists. And investors need stability to invest.
It's an insidious plan that is actually working.
So consensus shouldn't matter because if Joe the hairdresser or Jane the mechanic decide they, personally, want to do renewables, they can. Just by themselves. Hell, in most Australian cities ... I bet it would work in anything but the CBD.
Even small scale needs stability in government support because you need to invest in the grid and energy storage to handle the excess in power generated by solar panels during the day.
But you can also invest in the grid and have excess energy shifted to other regions that can make use of it.
"Investing in the grid" means expanding capacity in order to meet increased electricity demands as electric vehicles replace fosil fuel vehicles and increasing switching and grid intelligence to better handle a more distributed supply and demand.
More solar + more batteries and thermal storage + better grid are all things that grow hand in hand.
Of course investment in the grid is required to meet large scale population demands.
One thing solar excels for is providing shade and reducing water loss from the soil. Australia might reclaim some land that way.