ONE of the hurdles that Rudd Labor leaped on its path to power last year arose from the discarding of the ALP's long-held "no new mines" uranium policy. For many on the party's Left, resistance to any expansion of the nuclear industry was a deeply rooted article of faith; for almost everyone else, it was a deeply rooted illogicality that had to be swept away if Labor was to reclaim national office. Overturning the ban on new mines was one of the first tests of Kevin Rudd's authority in the party, and he prevailed.

In consequence, Labor does have a more rational policy that sets no arbitrary limit on the number of uranium mines. But those in the party who predicted that the end of the ban would result in more changes have also been vindicated, at least in their prescience. The decision on the site for a nuclear waste dump, which we reported yesterday will be given priority by the Government, is not directly connected to the mining of uranium.

As the Resources Minister, Martin Ferguson, said in revealing that he intends to make a decision on the dump site soon, the urgency of the choice reflects the fact that nuclear waste sent overseas from the research reactor at Lucas Heights, near Sydney, will return to Australia from 2011. Only with extreme naivete, however, could it be imagined that there will be no implications for the rest of the nuclear industry.

It has several times been suggested, by voices from inside Australia and from abroad, that this country's vast, geologically stable and largely unpopulated interior makes it especially suitable as a repository for nuclear waste. Those making this argument have not sought to hide their commercial interest in the matter, although they usually couch their argument in terms of an appeal to Australians' generosity of spirit. We are in a unique position to help the rest of the world, we are told, by taking - for a fee - and sequestering in some remote place what no one wants in their backyard.

The case is massively over-egged, but contains a core of truth. There is no reason why Australia should feel obliged to become the world's dump for all nuclear waste, or any other toxic substance. As we have argued before, however, if Australia is to be part of the global nuclear industry - and even those who sought to uphold the "no new mines" policy at last year's ALP conference accept that it is - then it bears a continuing responsibility for the uranium that it exports.

Australia contains 40% of the world's uranium resources, and exports uranium to more than 30 countries, generating potential wealth calculated in billions of dollars. But, while blithely accepting that economic return to the country, it has suited both Labor and the Coalition to reject the so-called "leasing back" of the process, the return and storage of waste from uranium enrichment in other countries. It is time to end the pretence that what leaves these shores has by that fact become someone else's problem.

In Hiroshima yesterday, and later at Kyoto, Mr Rudd proposed the establishment of an international commission to oversee the dismantling of the world's nuclear arsenals. If he accepts that there should be an international response to the threat posed by nuclear weapons, he ought to accept that the sale of uranium for power generation or other peaceful purposes is not a simple trade matter, like the export of iron ore.

As Mr Rudd will recall from the debates at last year's party conference, one of the main reasons supporters of the "no new mines" policy gave for retaining the ban was the danger posed by the storage of nuclear waste, whether from accidental contamination of the environment or through acts of sabotage. That danger has not disappeared, as some in the ALP federal caucus and the wider party will no doubt be telling Mr Ferguson in response to his plan to name the site for a waste dump. The impending announcement, however, together with Mr Rudd's interest in nuclear disarmament, offers the Government an opportunity to develop a coherent, rational policy on nuclear issues.

Australia is a participant in the global nuclear-fuel cycle. That is a given. As such, this country should be prepared to accept some waste from countries that import our uranium. And the contracts for such arrangements should set out clearly the obligations of both partners: the importers should be willing to comply with the international agreements to which Australia is a signatory, and if Australia is to take waste, part of the importer's cost should assist in paying for storage of the waste.