AUKUS alarm after nuclear dump in South Australia is axed
The decision by the federal government over the SA site could have ramifications for the nation's nuclear submarine plans.
The government has abandoned a decade-long process to establish a low-level radioactive waste dump near Kimba in South Australia, declaring it will not challenge a court ruling in favour of Indigenous people who argued that their voice was ignored in the site’s selection.
The Coalition suggested Australians should prepare for a surge of such outcomes under the proposed voice to parliament, and of ramifications for the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine deal that requires Australia to establish a high-level nuclear waste dump.
Resources Minister Madeleine King on Thursday announced the government would not appeal the Federal Court decision barring the use of the former farming property as a radioactive dump, and would not revisit previously shortlisted sites elsewhere in SA.
Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation chairman Jason Bilney said: “We are grateful as First Nations people that our voice has been heard.”
Judge Natalie Charlesworth on July 18 found there had been “apprehended bias” and “pre-judgment” in the site selection process by former resources minister Keith Pitt, who, she said, had displayed “a dismissive attitude to its key opponent, the Barngarla people”.
Anthony Albanese told parliament that Labor supported the Kimba site but the plan had faltered because of “the incompetence of the former minister”.
“It is completely the responsibility of the former government that this decision has been knocked over in the Federal Court,” the Prime Minister said.
Mr Pitt on Thursday said Indigenous groups empowered by a voice to parliament were likely to stymie future attempts to establish such facilities, undermining the national interest. “If one tribal group can stop a project of this significance on land that has no native title and is freehold, one can only imagine what the future holds under the Albanese government’s voice proposal,” he said.
“If Labor only intends to build infrastructure that has 100 per cent support from Aboriginal groups, very little infrastructure will ever be delivered.”
The decision leaves Australia without a planned permanent site to keep more than 13,000 cubic metres of low-level radioactive waste and more than 4300 cubic metres of intermediate-level waste currently stored at more than 100 locations, including in hospitals and science facilities and at universities.
The government needs to find a site for a high-level nuclear waste facility to store spent nuclear submarine fuel rods under the AUKUS partnership, which it has said will be established on Defence land.
Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Simon Birmingham said the government should have appealed the court ruling or legislated to overrule it, as it did to strip the Russian Federation of the site for a new embassy in Canberra.
“This gutless decision reeks of putting short-term politics ahead of Australia’s long-term interests,” Senator Birmingham said.
“The failure to deliver this site for storage of low-level radioactive waste not only creates huge uncertainties for nuclear medicines and leaves the waste at temporary city sites all over Australia, it also risks undermining confidence that Labor is capable of making the difficult decisions required to deliver nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS agreement.”
Ms King said the government remained committed to establishing a permanent low-level facility to store long-lasting radioactive waste “that can take thousands of years to decay”.
“Australia’s radioactive waste will grow into the future and while safe, these facilities are not purpose-built, and long-term management of Australia's waste at these locations is unsustainable,” she said.
“This is not where we wanted to be, but we have to start from where we are.”
The Gillard government passed legislation in 2012 to establish a national radioactive waste management facility.
The site selection process had been in train for seven years, with Mr Pitt announcing the property as the facility’s location in November 2021.
Ms King said the ruling was about the decision-making process, “not a claim of native title”.
“The judgement was clear, and the government is listening,” she told parliament.
More Coverage
Bandt, Greens accused of undermining national security
Adam Bandt has voted for just 6 per cent of government counter-terrorism and national security bills that went to a division during his 14 years in parliament, new research reveals.
Drug sponsors left waiting on government call
Labor has failed to plan for the consequences of delaying drug subsidies and left hundreds of patients waiting on treatments, the pharmacutical industry’s top body warns.