South Australia Premier Jay Weatherill said Tuesday the government will ultimately decide the fate of the state’s proposed nuclear waste disposal facility, the same day he approved a new government agency to facilitate community engagement on the project.
In its final report issued last week, the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission recommended that South Australia aggressively pursue waste agreements with countries such as Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea that are estimated to deliver more than AUS $100 billion in state profit over a 120-year period. The estimated 60,000 tons of waste would be stored or disposed of at used fuel and intermediate-level waste storage facilities in the state’s arid region. Aboriginal groups and Canberra think tank the Australia Institute have blasted the plan as an impossible dream, with calculations based on inflated estimates of income and deflated estimates of costs and risks.
At the recommendation of the commission, Weatherill on Tuesday approved formation of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Consultation and Response Agency, along with an advisory board to assist the newly formed government entity. Weatherill appointed “prominent Australians with high levels of integrity and awareness of the importance of working with the South Australian community” to the advisory board.
John Mansfield, member of the Order of Australia and retiring justice of the Federal Court of Australia, will chair the board. Mansfield will be joined by Parry Agius, former South Australian Native Title Service CEO; Daniela Stehlik, adjunct professor and scientist at Griffith University; Rebecca Huntley, social researcher and former director of the Mind & Mood Report; and Deb White, director of cancer research at the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute.
Weatherill said that feedback from the community engagement process will inform the government’s response to the commission’s final report, which he expects to deliver to the state Parliament by the end of 2016. Additionally, Weatherill said he plans to introduce a motion to establish a Joint House Select Committee to consider the commission’s findings.
“While ultimately, the government is responsible for deciding if South Australia’s role in the nuclear fuel cycle is expanded, all South Australians will have the opportunity to express their views through a consultation process in coming months,” Weatherill said in a ministerial statement.
Group Opposes Waste Plan
An Australian advocacy organization launched a campaign Monday against South Australia’s waste proposal, which the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission estimated would generate AUS $257 billion of revenue.
The No Dump Alliance said the plan shows a lack of respect for Aboriginal communities; future generations; and public health, environmental, and financial risks. One of the group’s ambassadors, Yami Lester, who reportedly went blind from British nuclear weapons tests at Emu Field and Maralinga in the 1950s, said “there are big concerns.”
“And I worry because I know it is not safe for South Australia land and the people,” Lester, a Yankunytjatjara Aboriginal elder, said a statement. “Why does the Government keep bringing back nuclear issues when we know the problems last forever?”
Like the Australia Institute, the No Dump Alliance said the plan’s financial projections don’t compute.
“If it’s such a good deal, why aren’t other countries rushing to do it? Something just doesn’t add up,” the group said in a statement. “The Royal Commission’s case for a nuclear dump making a profit is based on inflated estimates of the income and deflated estimates of the costs and risks.”
“The Commission assumes that countries with waste stockpiles will pay a premium price to dump in our backyard and that no other country will ever offer a cheaper option,” the group added. “If the economics of this nuclear waste project fail, the South Australian public would bear the losses – forever.”
Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce said in his final report on the waste plan that the project will not be possible without “broad social and specific community consent.”
