Australian Greens' Dissenting Report

From the extraction of uranium through to usage and waste disposal, there is no future for nuclear in Australia.[1]

1.1The Australian Greens strongly dissent against this report, the short time frame of this inquiry, and the broader AUKUS deal.

1.2To begin, we would like to thank all those who made submissions which brought to the attention of the Committee the severe implications of nuclear acquisition, concern about health, environment and safety impacts of the legislation and of AUKUS, and who wrote to the Committee in the interest of a nuclear free, peaceful future for Australia.

1.3In his second reading speech, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence Richard Marles MP stated this bill would allow Australia to take ‘the first legislative step in support of Australia’s acquisition of conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines’.[2] There are environmental, health, security and social risks associated with every facet of the nuclear industry. These risks disproportionately impact First Nations peoples and their lands.

1.4Nuclear weapons, nuclear accidents or attacks on reactors all pose unacceptable risks of catastrophic consequences for humans and the environment. There is no effective way to address nuclear disaster, therefore nuclear weapons should be eliminated and nuclear energy production should be phased out. Nuclear power is also not a safe, clean, timely, economic or practical solution to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.

1.5Given the magnitude of what is being proposed in this legislation, it is disingenuous that the two major parties have worked together to ensure a short time frame on the reporting of this inquiry and not enabled time for public hearings. This inquiry has been pushed through the Senate without adequate time for proper consultation, scrutiny and transparency. It is clear in many submissions to this inquiry, and from general public sentiment, that the Australian public has not been properly consulted on the AUKUS proposal or any of its implications. This is another clear example of a Morrison Government policy being adopted by the Albanese Government without scrutiny. Insufficient time has been allowed for the full implications of the provisions to be assessed.

A flawed premise

1.6The Labor and Liberal Coalition have forced this bill through inquiry at a pace that prohibits meaningful consultation, transparency or accountability. This is yet another sad example of the passive, unchallenged bipartisanship on issues involving the Australian Defence Force (ADF).

1.7In line with many of the submissions, the Australian Greens fundamentally oppose the AUKUS political deal and the outcomes it will have on Australian sovereignty, the independence of the ADF and nuclear safety. We particularly agree with the submission of Major-General Michael G. Smith AO (Ret’d) and former Australian Labor Party MP Professor John Langmore AM which stated that pursuing AUKUS ‘relegates Australia’s sovereignty’.[3]

1.8Additionally, as a consequence of acquiring a nuclear-powered capability Australia will be reliant on other countries for its nuclear fuel, entrenching our reliance on the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK) or other jurisdictions and further undermining the Minister’s claim that this deal strengthens our sovereignty.

1.9The Australian Greens support the call made in many submissions for a public parliamentary inquiry into the AUKUS deal, its effects and how it eventuated, before any further related legislation is passed.

Dangerous lack of oversight: Labor’s plan is to have Defence regulate Defence

1.10This bill is the first step in the largest nuclear program in Australian history and the Government has already signalled that it will violate international nuclear safety principles by exempting the nuclear power plants onboard SSN AUKUS submarines from independent regulation. It would be the first step in creating an apparatus that would allow the Department of Defence to operate the nuclear submarine program without any meaningful civilian oversight through the creation of a new Australian Nuclear-Powered Submarine Safety Regulator. Therefore, Australia’s nuclear submarine program will lack any civilian safeguard or oversight, from acquisition to disposal. The danger of this is a heightened risk of nuclear accidents and their disclosure, poor safeguarding and safety measures, which ultimately will put Australians at risk.

1.11The Defence Strategic Review proposes that the nuclear regulation of the Defence Force’s nuclear submarine program be undertaken by an internal body within the Defence portfolio. This rejects the official advice from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Federal Government’s own nuclear safety advisory council which warned that significant global nuclear and radiation incidents resulted from a lack of regulatory independence.

1.12This proposed bill to give the Department of Defence control of its own nuclear usage is poor practice and cannot comply with the IAEA Governmental, Legal and Regulatory Framework for Safety (GSR Part 1 Rev. 1) Requirement #4 which requires a regulatory body to be ‘effectively independent in ... safety related decision making and [have] functional separation from entities having responsibilities or interests that could unduly influence its decision making’.[4] The IAEA also requires as one of its 10 minimum standards for nuclear regulation that ‘an effective legal and governmental framework for safety, including an independent regulatory body, must be established and sustained … [that is] … independent of the licensee and of any other body, so that it is free from any undue pressure from interested parties’.[5]

1.13Labor has also now confirmed that the nuclear submarine regulator will report to the Minister for Defence. This is a lack of transparency that will further erode the social licence of this program.

A watering down of an Australian landmark moratorium

1.14The Australian public has rejected the nuclearisation of our community for nearly a century. The community knows that even one nuclear accident has the potential to be catastrophic for generations.

1.15This legislation weakens the moratorium on nuclear energy which has been a landmark of Australian energy policy for decades and opens the door for a repeal of the moratorium under future governments. This is a view shared by many organisations representing workers across the country including the Electrical Trades Union (ETU) who stated in their submission that they did not support ‘the watering down of long-standing nuclear prohibitions to allow for the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines’.[6] Additionally, the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) strongly opposed any changes to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 (ARPANS Act) and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) ‘that would lead to the development of a nuclear industry in this country or lead to a breach of [Australia’s] moratorium [on civil nuclear power]’.[7] The Greens strongly align with these concerns.

Disposal of depleted fuel

1.16Future generations must not be burdened with an unknown amount of toxic nuclear waste for which there is no safe disposal and which will persist in the environment for an estimated 1 million years.

1.17The burden of Australia’s nuclear supply chain and proposed waste storage is disproportionately borne by First Nations peoples. It significantly and negatively impacts on their culture, connection to country, well-being, and their right to manage land, natural resources, and water. Further, amongst public debate around a federal Voice, the Labor Government is disregarding the voices of First Nations people when it comes to nuclear waste. The Greens want to highlight the concerns raised in Australian Nuclear Free Alliance’s submission:

Our members have borne the brunt of successive federal government attempts to impose a national radioactive waste facility on Aboriginal lands.[8]

1.18And from the Australian Conservation Foundation:

ACF seeks clarification on what analysis has been undertaken to ensure proposed radioactive waste management aligns with the Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) provisions of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People’s (2007).[9]

1.19The Government has already indicated an alarming approach to transparency around the nuclear submarines, blocking the publication of documents about nuclear safety and waste issues.

1.20Ian Low, Griffith University Emeritus Professor and radiation and nuclear safety expert, has noted that each Virginia class submarine carries 200 kilograms of weapons grade uranium, which is more than three times the amount of enriched uranium used for the destructive bombing of Hiroshima.[10] The Government has not put forward any plan for how that material will be safely accommodated near major population centres like Port Kembla and the Illawarra. As noted by Dr Ziggy Switkowski:

No country has yet commissioned and completed a spent fuel or high-level nuclear waste facility. Australia has even struggled to get traction to build a small, low-level facility in Central Australia. The costs of spent fuel storage in reactor decommissioning may be high and may be a potential burden on future generations extending into the hundreds of years.[11]

1.21The Medical Association for the Prevention of War also highlighted that through their commitment to the AUKUS deal, the Labor Party is backpedalling away from previous statements made in a previous inquiry:

Nuclear energy involves unique risks to human health and the environment, and it is strongly associated with and related to the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Any decision to pursue nuclear energy technology would have regional geo-political consequences.[12]

1.22We know that nuclear waste and nuclear activity will have detrimental impacts on the environment and the Australian people. There’s clearly a need for stronger safeguards and stiffer penalties if we are to have any faith in the protective regimes around nuclear materials. There has been very little transparency or opportunity for public debate on the proposal to host and acquire nuclear submarines. In Western Australia, there are growing concerns about the potential impact of nuclear submarines docked at HMAS Stirling at Meeandip (Garden Island) in Derbal Nara (Cockburn Sound). This is echoed by communities across the country.

1.23The Greens have always strongly opposed the building of a nuclear waste facility in South Australia which has had widespread community opposition and a concerted campaign by First Nations custodians, the Barngarla people, who instigated court proceedings to stop this dump.

Commitment to international norms

1.24As highlighted by the Australian Conservation Foundation:

Australia would be the only non-Nuclear Weapons State to have nuclear powered submarines. This unhelpful exercise in Australian exceptionalism and the proposed use of weapons grade highly enriched uranium (HEU) has clear proliferation sensitivities and is the focus of deep concern from nations in the region.[13]

1.25The Greens have always been loud in calling for Australia to sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The Labor Government has been severely disappointing in its inability to commit Australia to this, particularly amidst public concern around nuclear proliferation and capability here in Australia. It is the least we can do, but instead, the Labor Party has strengthened its partnership with the US, to the detriment of our foreign policy independence, and therefore ability to ratify this widely supported treaty.

1.26The AUKUS deal has attracted attention and concern from the IAEA, which has stated that ‘with Australia, with the United States and with the United Kingdom, we have to enter into a very complex, technical negotiation to see to it that as a result of this there is no weakening of the nuclear non-proliferation regime’.[14]

1.27Despite the Government’s assurances that the SSN AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines will be conventionally armed, there is a strong link between the mining and export of uranium and nuclear weapons proliferation. The world should be free of nuclear weapons and the nuclear fuel chain.

1.28The Government must be clear with the Australian public about how the proposed bill and the actions it would enable align with Australia’s obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and regional instruments including the South Pacific Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty (aka the Rarotonga Treaty, 1985).

Recommendation 1

1.29That this bill does not proceed.

Recommendation 2

1.30That there be an immediate Parliamentary inquiry into the AUKUS arrangement prior to any further related legislation being passed.

Recommendation 3

1.31A rejection of any calls for Australia to host international high level radioactive waste.

Recommendation 4

1.32The Australian Labor Government suspend all plans for a national waste facility at Kimba in regional South Australia.

Recommendation 5

1.33That, as a priority, Australia signs the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Senator Jordon Steele-John

Senator for Western Australia

Footnotes

[1]Electrical Trades Union of Australia (ETU), Submission 7, p. 1.

[2]The Hon Richard Marles MP, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, Second Reading Speech, 10 May 2023, p. 15.

[3]Major-General Michael G. Smith AO (Ret’d) and Professor John Langmore AM, Submission 23, p. 5.

[4]International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), ‘Government, Legal and Regulatory Framework for Safety: General Safety Requirements’, 2016, p. 6.

[5]IAEA, ‘Fundamental Safety Principles: Safety Fundamentals No. SF-1’, 2006, pp. 7–8.

[6]ETU, Submission 7, p. 1.

[7]Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union, Submission 6, p. 1.

[8]Australian Nuclear Free Alliance, Submission 50, p. 1.

[9]Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), Submission 48, p. 2.

[10]Senator David Shoebridge, ‘Labor refuses to say how much weapons-grade uranium will be on its nuclear submarines’, media release, 24 March 2023, p. 1.

[11]Dr Ziggy Switkowski, Committee Hansard, Sydney, 20 August 2019, House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia.

[12]Medical Association for the Prevention of War, Submission 49, p. 2.

[13]ACF, Submission 48, p. 3.

[14]Rafael Grossi, IAEA Director General, quoted in Stephen Dziedzic and Andrew Greene, ‘International Atomic Energy Agency head to inspect safeguards for Australia's nuclear submarine program’, ABC News, 2 July 2022.