Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

Scarce and his pro nuclear Royal Commission not looking credible

Scarce thanks expertsOn radio this week, Scarce denied his commission had “cooked” the numbers. There was nothing wrong with contracting pro-nuke lobbyists to do the work…….

there will be more consultation. There is also a parliamentary inquiry into the issue, due to report on November 29, which sources suggest is likely to split three-all, with Labor and Family First on one side and the Greens and Liberals on the other.

And further analysis of the royal commission’s economic calculations, received by the state parliament this week, is highly critical

SA’s citizen jury defies royal commission,  SA’s citizen jury, which rejected the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission’s pro-storage stance, reveals the democratic tension when governments open decision-making to the people while seeking a predetermined outcome. Saturday Paper 19 Nov 16  MIKE SECCOMBE

Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce, AC, CSC, RANR, calmly damned the torpedoes when he went on Adelaide radio on Tuesday morning. He wasn’t sunk yet, he insisted.

The available evidence, however, suggested he was taking a lot of water. Over more than a year the former navy man and South Australian governor had steered his royal commission into the nuclear fuel cycle towards a radioactive future. Now, six months after the release of his report recommending the state become a repository for nuclear waste, it had been badly holed.

A citizens’ jury of 350 randomly selected people had looked into the findings, had heard evidence from witnesses selected for them and from their own selected witnesses and had come down by a margin of about two-to-one against any plan to store high-level nuclear waste in the state. This was a surprise to many, including some opponents of the plan who already had put a deal of work into formulating elaborate conspiracy theories and disseminating the message that the citizens’ jury was designed as a stitch-up.

If it was – and we’ll come back to the claims – then it was very badly stitched. The jury’s opposition was absolute.

“Under no circumstances should South Australia pursue opportunity to store and dispose of nuclear waste from other countries for reasons of consent, economic, trust and safety,” the report said.

Of these reasons, consent and safety were pretty straightforward: the traditional owners had not given approval for the use of their land, and accidents happen.

The most interesting was trust. They made it clear they didn’t have faith in the government and the decision-making process of which they were a part. In particular they didn’t trust the royal commission, which they believed had been established to reach a predetermined outcome.

“Multiple threads of concern are present that undermine the confidence of jurors in the royal commission report’s validity,” the jury report said. “These concerns collectively combine to effect a powerful ‘No’ response.”

Foremost among those concerns was the fact that the consultancy company hired by the royal commission, Jacobs MCM, was not independent. Its economic report was written by Charles McCombie and Neil Chapman, respectively the president and vice-president of ARIUS, the Association for Regional and International Underground Storage, a lobby group for nuclear power and waste dumps.

Both had connections to Pangea Resources, a consortium that had previously proposed the construction of a private nuclear dump in Australia. There were more dubious links, too, which conservation groups had been trying to bring to public attention for months…….

The trust issue in turn highlighted the economic issue. Jacobs MCM had concluded South Australia would reap $5 billion in revenue a year, but now the jury didn’t trust their numbers. The jurors called for evidence from three economists: Richard Denniss, Barbara Pocock and Richard Blandy. Their submissions were damning.

On radio this week, Scarce denied his commission had “cooked” the numbers. There was nothing wrong with contracting pro-nuke lobbyists to do the work…….

there will be more consultation. There is also a parliamentary inquiry into the issue, due to report on November 29, which sources suggest is likely to split three-all, with Labor and Family First on one side and the Greens and Liberals on the other.

And further analysis of the royal commission’s economic calculations, received by the state parliament this week, is highly critical……..https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2016/11/19/sas-citizen-jury-defies-royal-commission/14794740003993

 

Advertisements

November 20, 2016 - Posted by | Nuclear Citizens Jury

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: