Time for a serious nuclear waste dump debate in South Australia, writes Jay Weatherill

COMMUNITY views about our involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle are anything but static. I know my own thoughts on the issue have changed over time and continue to change as the evidence is laid before us.

NFCRC Tentative Findings Presentation Temporary or interim storage for Nuclear Waste.

• What next for SA’s nuclear waste plans?
• Nuclear dump would tip $445 billion into state economy

COMMUNITY views about our involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle are anything but static. I know my own thoughts on the issue have changed over time and continue to change as the evidence is laid before us.

As a high school student, amid the 1980s’ protests about uranium mining, I once penned a poem venting my fervent opposition to nuclear energy.

More recently, many of the arguments surrounding clean energy and the economic benefits of further involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle have commanded my attention.

So for all of us weighing up the issue, this week’s finding of the Royal Commission is just the start of the process of coming to a community view and it is worth underlining the reason for choosing the royal commission process.

Royal commissions are usually established to examine something that has gone wrong.

They provide independent investigations of the highest order and set out recommendations that aim to end controversy and debate.

The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, which released its tentative findings on Monday, is of a different kind.

Rather than close down debate on the issue of whether or not South Australia should be more deeply involved in the nuclear fuel cycle, this royal commission was established to create public discussion.

Already, there has been a diversity of views expressed about the Commission’s tentative findings — and that’s a good thing. It will be important that the choices before us are interrogated from a range of perspectives so that opportunities and risks are carefully explored.

However, these initial reactions need to be tested against the available evidence before we can reach a considered judgment about what will be in the best long-term interests of the state.

The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission has been established to provide a foundation of facts and evidence that can inform a decision about the extent of the South Australia’s involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle.

That’s why it is important that as many people as possible take the opportunity to respond to the Commission during this five-week feedback period.

But that’s only part of the process by which South Australians will resolve this matter.

When I announced the State Government’s intention to establish this royal commission 12 months ago, I said that South Australians should also be given the opportunity to explore the practical, financial and ethical issues raised.

I believe the key threshold question to be satisfied by government, community and industry in our deliberations is that any future steps can be taken safely.

The Commission’s final report, to be received in May, will provide key facts and information needed for the next stage of the process which will enable the South Australian community to discuss and deliberate on the risks and opportunities of further participation in all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle.

This engagement process is expected to take place between May and August this year, with the Government providing a full response to the Royal Commission later this year.

I encourage all South Australians who haven’t already done so to engage in this important debate by reviewing the Royal Commission’s tentative findings at www.nuclearrc.sa.gov.au.

Jay Weatherill is the Premier of South Australia.