Fix these issues or sink the nuclear submarine safety bill

There are at least three major issues that must be addressed. Firstly, we need to ensure Australia is not responsible for disposing of all UK/US AUKUS submarines' high level nuclear waste.

Secondly, the government is granting itself the right to build high level nuclear waste facilities anywhere in the country, bypassing existing environmental laws and planning protections.

Finally, the bill will have the Defence Department regulating itself. This creates a clear conflict of interest.

Disposing of high level nuclear waste is globally an unsolved problem. Nuclear submarine waste is more dangerous than any currently produced in Australia. The UK has multiple decommissioned nuclear submarines afloat in Devonport, while the US has removed the reactors from all its decommissioned subs and parked the reactor waste, for permanent disposal at some point in the future.

For decades there has been pressure from vested interests for Australia to house the world's nuclear waste. South Australians very clearly rejected becoming an international nuclear dumping ground less than a decade ago. This bill potentially opens a back door to international high level nuclear waste.

Next, the bill grants the Defence Minister unprecedented powers over the location of the waste site. Nuclear waste should not be imposed on unwilling communities, but needs full, prior, informed consent. Indigenous lands have been repeatedly targeted. Australia needs to observe the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Lastly, having the safety regulator reporting to the Defence Minister creates a clear conflict of interest. To quote the Australia's radiation safety regulator (ARPANSA)'s Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council in 2022:

"Independence of the regulator is a critical part of its effectiveness. The regulator should be independent of the operators and departments overseeing any aspect of purchase, manufacture, maintenance, and operation of the program. It is noted that some of the more significant global nuclear and radiation incidents have arisen from inadequate separation of responsibilities from regulatory capture"

There have been a number of nuclear submarine accidents and radiation releases over the years, despite enthusiasts' claims of a perfect track record. The UK has used "national security" grounds to stop the public accessing reports by the Ministry of Defence's internal watchdog, the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator, since 2017.

In the US the Congressional Research Service noted Australia would "unavoidably" become responsible for preventing an accident once it operated US-made submarines. Such an accident might "call into question for third-party observers the safety of all US Navy nuclear-powered ships", potentially affecting "US public support ... and/or the ability of US Navy nuclear-powered ships to make port calls around the world..."

Pressure on Australia to conceal or downplay any nuclear accidents would be high. Information must be made freely available to communities and authorities, both to plan emergency preparedness and to respond to a nuclear accident. "National security" must not be used as a cover-all excuse for secrecy, especially in relation to public health matters.

The AUKUS submarine proposal has provided spectacular press conferences. As a political wedge it failed. Beyond this, there are still so many unanswered questions about this extremely risky, extraordinarily high-cost proposal.

At the very least, we must get the waste and safety aspects right from the outset. The Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill needs much greater scrutiny and must be either heavily amended or rejected outright.