Nuclear inquiry a ‘missed opportunity’ for subs
Critics have complained that draft terms of reference for a Royal Commission into the nuclear fuel cycle neglect key areas for growth in South Australia.
Family First Senator Bob Day says while he welcomes the inquiry, it should include a discussion about the potential for nuclear-powered submarines, particularly with the current debate around the nation’s next long-term construction contract.
“We are disappointed its terms of reference are being confined away from a potential growth industry for the state, and a vital question for the defence of our nation,” Day told InDaily in a statement.
“The Royal Commission … should consider all the options, not bypass some. Here we are, in the thick of a debate about submarines for the nation built or sustained in South Australia, but the State Government is excluding the nuclear submarines option used by some of our major allies such as the United States and Great Britain.”
The draft terms of reference, released yesterday afternoon, have explicitly ruled out the use of nuclear power for military purposes, but Day insists he is talking only of nuclear-powered submarines, not nuclear armed.
“The range and potency of nuclear-powered submarines is second to none – they never need re-fuelling during their operational life,” he said.
“To go for a conventional option only weakens Australia’s defence, leaving us more dependent on our allies. Sure, we can’t immediately start building nuclear submarines to replace the Collins class, but that is not to say that all 12 of the next generation of submarines need to be conventional – the longer-range plan can be nuclear.”
The commission’s draft terms also rule out retreating from the state’s current level of involvement in uranium mining.
Premier Jay Weatherill said the focus would be “on the three key areas of uranium enrichment, nuclear power generation and waste storage” and the terms would “explicitly state that the impact on remote, regional and Aboriginal communities will be key to the inquiry”.
But Opposition Leader Steven Marshall said the broad nature of the terms underlined his accusation that the whole enterprise was a “thought-bubble designed to deflect attention away from Government cuts to health facilities”.
He argued a Royal Commission was an inappropriate forum for a genuine community debate, pointing out that Section 11 of the state’s Royal Commissions Act provides for heavy penalties – including three months jail – for criticising the commission or commissioner.
Stay informed, daily
“It’s not like you’ve got to compel witnesses or compel evidence: this should have been done in the normal order of business,” Marshall said.
“We want a public debate with regards to this (and) I don’t think there’s any compelling reason the Government has provided for why this should have a Royal Commission status…This is the sort of work that should be done by Government in a bipartisan way.”
Before last year’s election, Weatherill ruled out any public inquiry on the nuclear industry as a “dangerous distraction”.
The full draft terms of reference can be found here, with consultation to close on Friday, March 13.
Want to see more stories from InDaily SA in your Google search results?
- Click here to set InDaily SA as a preferred source.
- Tick the box next to "InDaily SA". That's it.
