China still has plans for some 100 nuclear reactors (IIRC) with 10 or 15 under construction right now (again, ballpark as I recall) and a still standing long term goal of nuclear at 18% maybe 20% of total generation.
China already has nuclear reactors, has generations of skilled nuclear reactor technicians and a new generation in the pipeline being trained. It's also a large economy.
Australia is a great deal smaller in both population and wealth and utterly lacks any significant skill set in nuclear power generation and engineering, a handful of Australian nuclear scientists aside.
Of the two dominant Australian political parties one essentially denies AGW (climate change) is an issue and seek to do as little as possible, to this end they have proposed their "climate solution" as Nuclear!! (but much later than now, and only a few power stations, and we don't really have an actual plan like a blueprint or time table or permissions from proposed site owners, etc).
This isn't a nuclear plan, it's a plan to build more coal power station "in the meantime" and hope that one day it'll be economical in Australia to buy some "off the shelf" set and forget SMR magical thinking nuclear tech.
As a matter of pragmatic action, in the immediate short term, in an Austraian context, it makes better economic sense to put money now into rapid expansion of renewables and storage - there's even a solid government scientific body report on that.
This isn't a "let's hate nuclear" position, more a "what's the most economically feasible solution in Australia as it stands now" position.
The downplaying of China's nuclear portion of future planning here is entirely based (by my best guess) on not wanting to be seen to say "Hey, it's working in China" to an Australian readership.
It is working in China, but that has no real bearing on nuclear being a good fit in Australia at the present time.