On May 17, the SA Liberal government announced it would legislate in an attempt to stop the federal government storing high-level nuclear waste in SA.

Federal science minister Nick Minchin responded by threatening to override the proposed SA legislation.

The SA government’s decision reflects the overwhelming opposition of the SA population to nuclear waste being dumped in the state. It followed the introduction of similar bills into the SA parliament by Labor and the Democrats.

Labor’s federal environment spokesperson, Nick Bolkus, said that “international best practice for nuclear developments requires community acceptance as a fundamental precondition.” However, the federal Labor government threatened to seize land for a nuclear dump in the early 1990s.

Nick Minchin should have copped the SA government’s decision on the chin. With the issue of high-level waste storage off the agenda, it would be easier to establish an underground dump for low-level waste in SA, a proposal which the SA government supports. The federal government plans to “assess” and rubber-stamp its plan for a low-level dump in the next 12-18 months. With the next federal election out of the way, and with a low-level dump in place, efforts could be made to side-step the SA legislation against high-level waste storage, to convince the SA government to repeal it, or to override it as a last resort. Most or all of the waste from the nuclear reactor plant in Sydney could then be sent to the dump and an adjacent store in SA, political opposition to a new reactor would be contained, and the nuclear industry would live happily ever after.

But Minchin has bad judgment or a bad temper. He issued a press release threatening to override SA legislation using commonwealth powers - an interesting twist given that Minchin is a South Australian himself and given Liberal rhetoric about “states’ rights”.

"Any legislation passed by the South Australian or other State or Territory government will not change our plans. ... Any State or Territory law which is inconsistent with the relevant Commonwealth law ... would not bind the Commonwealth”, Minchin said.

The federal government will go through the pretence of a scientific evaluation of potential sites for a high-level store, while all sorts of carrots and sticks will be used behind the scenes to get a state government to roll over.

The federal government’s threat led to front-page stories in Adelaide’s only mass circulation establishment paper, the Advertiser, including a page one headline announcing SA’s declaration of “nuclear war” against the federal government and a May 18 editorial likening Minchin’s threat to the “arrogance which cost the Kennett government so dearly in Victoria.”

The federal government’s response will harden opposition not only to a high-level nuclear waste store, but also to a low-level dump.

Minchin is attempting to convince South Australians to accept a high-level waste store on the basis that 20,000 South Australians benefit every year from isotopes produced by the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor. His May 17 press release mentioned the magical 20,000 figure three times.

This is a nonsense argument. Compared to SA, seven times as many nuclear medicine procedures are carried out in NSW, four times as many in Victoria and twice as many in Queensland. South Australia still has the contaminated Maralinga weapons site to deal with, and the Roxby Downs uranium and copper mine, and the Beverley and Honeymoon uranium mines. Moreover, the case for a centralised, national store for high-level nuclear waste is weak.

It is not clear whether the federal government could successfully override the proposed SA legislation. It is also doubtful whether the federal government would attempt to override the legislation given the likely political costs. Surveys indicate that 86% of South Australians are opposed to the planned low-level dump. There is greater opposition to a high-level waste store and probably close to 100% opposition to Nick Minchin’s tactics. All political parties represented in the SA parliament (and probably all the independent MPs) oppose a high-level waste store.

Reactor link

It remains to be seen whether the problems with the federal government’s waste plans will jeopardise the plan for a new reactor in the Sydney suburb of Lucas Heights. At the very least, they raise the political costs of proceeding with a new reactor.

A 1999 report from the federal environment department premised its support for a new reactor on the federal government’s intention to remove waste from Lucas Heights and to co-locate a high-level waste store with a low-level dump in SA.

The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) justified its granting of a licence to prepare a site for a new reactor with reference to the federal government’s intention to co-locate a high-level waste store with a low-level dump in SA.

Both environment minister Robert Hill and ARPANSA have to agree that “satisfactory arrangements” exist for high-level waste management before construction of a new reactor can begin in 2002. Minchin is quoted in the May 18 Advertiser saying that a site for a high-level store would be chosen in 18 months to two years.

A May 16 Bulletin article says that Minchin will need a selling technique "hotter than radioactive waste" to convince ARPANSA and the environment minister to allow reactor construction to begin when a site for a high-level waste store may have been identified but the store not yet assessed, approved or built.

However, the Bulletin may be overestimating the independent regulator's independence and the environment minister's interest in the environment. The legislation which gives the “independent” regulator ARPANSA its existence is the same legislation the federal government proposes to use to override SA legislation.

It has taken successive governments 20 years to locate a site for a low-level dump. Now the federal government has to identify a site for a high-level waste store within two years. The May 17 brawl between the politicians won’t be the last.