The Administrative Review Tribunal has rebuked the Government over the lead lining it’s wrapping around plans for AUKUS Nuclear Waste Storage and Disposal. Transparency Warrior Rex Patrick reports.
The Administrative Review Tribunal has slapped the Government on the wrist as it ordered it to hand over documents related to how and where AUKUS Nuclear Waste will be stored and disposed of.
As Deputy President Britten-Jones wrote in his decision reasoning, “With respect to building social licence and trust with the public, there is some force in the applicant’s submission in response that
the best way to achieve social licence and trust is through transparency and not secrecy.
MWM had requested access to the advice that Geoscience Australia and the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency (ARWA) have been providing to the Australian Submarine Agency (Submarine Agency).
Britten-Jones concluded his judgment saying, “I consider that disclosure of the documents would inform debate on a matter of public importance. There is a significant public interest in understanding policy decisions by Government in respect of nuclear waste management.”
Nuclear waste review
In November 2023, the Submarine Agency handed a report to Defence Minister Richard Males on the process by which the government will identify locations that could be suitable to store and dispose of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste generated by AUKUS submarines.
When the report was handed to the Minister, the covering note warned there would be public interest in it.
Submarine Agency Advice to the Minister (Source: Government)
Noting the combination of public interest and sensitivity, there was only one thing for the Government to do: declare the report a Cabinet document.
Whether or not it is, in fact, a Cabinet document is a question now before the Federal Court. While the Government resists disclosure of the report, with the public paying for its pro-secrecy lawyers, MWM thought to request the material that Geoscience Australia and ARWA have been providing to the Submarine Agency to develop its policies.
That brought about another transparency fight that has led to the Tribunal’s rebuke.
Nuclear literacy
In fighting to keep everything secret, the Government brought in the big guns to give evidence. The CEO of ARWA, Mr Sam Usher, informed the Tribunal of the dangers of letting what he described as a “nuclear illiterate” Australian public know what’s going on.
Submarine boasts, yet nuclear waste dumps submersed in secrecy
The Tribunal rejected his secrecy waffle, stating in response:
“Mr Usher considered there was less nuclear literacy in Australia compared for example with the UK, but it is apparent from the contents of the media release attached to his affidavit that the Australian public would be aware that Australia’s radioactive waste will grow into the future and that long-term management of waste at current locations is unsustainable and that ‘alternative proposals for storage and disposal of … waste’ have been and are being actively considered.”
“Information in relation to factors relevant to the process of site selection for storage and disposal has been made publicly available in reports such as those from the CSIRO that the Applicant tendered. I do not accept the Respondent’s concerns that disclosure of specific geological or technical information from qualified persons at Geoscience Australia or ARWA would derail the Government’s process of decision-making in this area.”
“To the contrary, the public would likely be pleased that appropriately qualified persons are considering these important issues, and the public would be given the opportunity to have input into the process, both of which could assist the Government in its decision-making process.”
Submarine Agency radioactive bulldust
Deputy Director General of Strategy at the Submarine Agency, Alex Kelton, gave similar evidence to ARWA. The public should not know – it’s too dangerous for the government! She testified that transparency would cause the diversion of Government resources “by inviting [public] discussion about early contemplative thinking on a matter which Australia does not have a long-standing policy position”.
But the Tribunal was having none of Ms Kelton’s confidentiality and narrative control arguments. On confidentiality, the Deputy President said:
“In my view, Ms Kelton’s concerns regarding disclosure undermining confidentiality cannot reasonably apply to this information. Further, disclosure of this information would not interfere with consultation processes or the building of social licence because it is publicly available information which the public would reasonably expect to be the subject of consideration by the Project Team. Indeed, its release would likely result in more benefit than harm because the public will be comforted to know that these important matters were part of the consideration in relation to nuclear waste management.”
On narrative control, Britten-Jones rebuked her:
“I can understand the Respondent’s preference for an orderly release of information, but if the material was released, the Government would be able to provide its own context and the public would benefit from a better understanding of the process being undertaken.”
“Whilst there may be some inconvenient responses to the release of the information requiring Government action, the release would lead to and inform debate on a matter of public importance, and it would increase scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of the Government’s activities. These are factors in the public interest that favour giving access to the material in issue to the Applicant. In my view, these factors outweigh any of the concerns expressed by the witnesses for the Respondent.”
Technicalities
Much of the material provided by Geoscience Australia and ARWA was scientific and technical in nature, which cannot be exempted under the claims the Commonwealth were advancing in the proceedings.
Britten-Jones wasn’t swayed by their radioactive proclamations, instead declaring:
“Opinions are expressed on a scientific basis, including with respect to a particular matter, which might well be contentious and give rise to sensitivities but nevertheless it is part of the opinion expressed by the expert on a scientific matter [but it is not exempt from release]”
On geological information that may or may not reveal a location under consideration, the Deputy President stated:
“I do not consider that there would be significant harm from disclosing geological information about a particular site even if it could be inferred that the site is either ruled in or ruled out from further consideration as a location for storage or disposal of nuclear waste.”
Stop the secrecy!
Britten-Jones, whilst polite in his writings, was scathing of the secrecy approach being taken. One can just hope both ARWA and the Submarine Agency reflect on what he said.
He concluded his decision, “There is no harm in disclosing this material. To the contrary, it is in the public interest to disclose it because it would inform debate on a matter of public importance and it
would increase scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of the Government’s activities.
Tens of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars have been spent to date trying to keep AUKUS nuclear waste information from the public. The Government has 28 days to appeal the decision of the Federal Court and may well do so. That would likely cost in the hundreds of thousands – but it’s only more of your money they’d be spending on senseless secrecy.
Where are the AUKUS nuclear waste costings (let alone the dump sites)?