Transpacific Partnership now as good as dead
TPP: Trans-Pacific Partnership dead, before Trump even takes office, http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/transpacific-partnership-dead-before-trump-even-takes-office-20161113-gso9kn.html The Age, Peter Martin , 14 Nov 16, Eight years in the making, the giant Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal between Australia, the US and 10 other regional powers is as good as dead after the Obama administration walked away from its plan to put it before the “lame duck” Congress ahead of Donald Trump’s inauguration as president.
Controversial in Australia because it would allow US-headquartered corporations to sue Australian governments in extraterritorial tribunals and entrench pharmaceutical monopolies and copyright rules, the TPP was the subject of a last-minute plea by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to president-elect Donald Trump in their 15-minute phone conversation on Thursday.
It has been signed by each of the member countries – Australia, the US, Japan, Canada, New Zealand, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, Chile, Mexico, Peru and Vietnam – but ratified by none.
Other members including Australia were waiting for a decision from the US because the rules require ratification by members accounting for 85 per cent of the the agreement’s gross domestic product, meaning it can’t come into force without the US as the other members combined have only 43 per cent.
Over the weekend the Senate’s top Democrat Charles Schumer told union leaders the deal would not be ratified. House of Representatives Republican speaker Paul Ryan, who has in the past supported the TPP, said the “votes aren’t there” to pass it.
Mr Trump made opposing the TPP a key part of his campaign, saying America did “not need to enter into another massive international agreement that ties us up and binds us down”. Democrats members of Congress were never keen, opposing by a wide margin President Barack Obama’s negotiating mandate which only passed into law with the support of Republicans.
On Sunday Australia’s trade minister Steven Ciobo questioned whether it would be worthwhile concluding the agreement without the US, even if it was possible.
“In theory, yes,” he told the ABC’s Insiders. “but is there enough merit to look at a trade deal among the 11 of us? It changes the metrics substantially.”
Mr Ciobo will hold discussions about the future of the agreement at the APEC leaders summit in Lima, Peru on Thursday which will be attended by Mr Turnbull on Sunday.
The US decision leaves two Australian parliamentary inquiries in limbo. The joint standing committee on treaties finished hearing evidence just before Mr Trump’s election and has not yet produced a report. The Senate inquiry has yet to call witnesses.
Now, focus on the unnecessarily large, and unnecessary, Flinders nuclear dump proposal.
— Steve Dale Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch South Australia, Good news …., but don’t lose the momentum. People need to focus the blow torch on the Flinder’s dump proposal. It is much bigger than needed for just Lucas Height’s waste and will be used as a Trojan Horse for any future international dump attempt. Lucas Heights should be able to store the small amount of waste it produces on it’s own site or somewhere in NSW. NO FURTHER PUBLIC MONEY should be spent on nuclear industry, by the South Australian taxpayer.
South Australian ‘citizens’ jury’ rejects nuclear dump, Green Left RENFREY CLARKE. Adelaide, November 11, 2016 “………Lack of confidence Also striking is the complete lack of confidence voiced by the jurors in the ability or willingness of the state’s politicians to manage radioactive materials responsibly. “No evidence of regulatory bodies … to act independently and to be funded properly to adequately regulate an industry,” the report observes. As evidence, the report cites examples that include a radioactive tailings site at Port Pirie on which children were allowed to play for decades, and which was prone to flooding by high tides.
Dealt with brusquely is an issue that promises to be highly contentious in coming months. “There was agreement that … NO FURTHER PUBLIC MONEY should be spent by the South Australian taxpayer.”
Weatherill, however, shows signs of planning to do exactly that.
The jury’s verdict is not binding on the government. After months of implying that the jury’s recommendation would be viewed as definitive, the Premier has now switched to stressing the “fifty thousand” South Australians whose views his “roadshow” supposedly canvassed.
The dump process, Weatherill made clear in his address to the jury on receiving its report, is not yet dead.
“Mr Weatherill said the ‘very clear position’ of the jury would be combined with other government research about the state-wide views of the nuclear industry, as Cabinet considers whether to push ahead,” the Advertiserreported on November 7.
“All of those perspectives need to be weighed up,” Weatherill said. “We don’t expect that this is a debate that will be concluded any time soon.” Weatherill is now due to present a formal position to parliament on the dump proposal, probably around the end of November. But if he tries to force the scheme through as he has suggested, the political costs for his government will be dire.
On the question of the dump, South Australians seem overwhelmingly to accept the verdict of their Citizens’ Jury peers. On November 7 an informal Channel 7 poll asked: “Should the state government now abandon its nuclear storage plans?” The response was: Yes 86%, No 14%.
Charged with legitimising the dump, the jury has very likely ended the scheme. But anti-dump activists would be foolish to quit their campaigning just yet. https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/south-australian-%E2%80%98citizens%E2%80%99-jury%E2%80%99-rejects-nuclear-dump
Time for Premier Weatherill to listen to the jury on radioactive waste -Traditional Owners
Traditional Owners and members of the Aboriginal-led Australian Nuclear Free Alliance (ANFA) have welcomed the Citizen’s Jury’s recommendation to reject an international high level radioactive waste dump for South Australia.
Throughout both the Royal Commission and Citizens Jury processes concerns of potential bias have been raised. The consultancy firm hired by the Royal Commission, Jacobs MCM, has clear links to the nuclear industry. The economic report was written by Charles McCombie and Neil Chapman, the president and vice president of the Association for Regional and International Underground Storage (ARIUS). A further example of bias was that the Citizen Jurors were asked to nominate ‘witnesses’ they wished to speak to, but DemocracyCo added three people to the witness list ‒ all of them pro-nuclear ‒ without the Jurors’ knowledge or consent.
ANFA members are concerned by SA premier Jay Weatherill’s suggestion that he may not heed the jury’s recommendations: “This jury doesn’t believe the present proposal should be taken forward but we need to take into account a whole range of other broad community views[1]“.
Kokatha-Mula woman Sue Coleman-Haseldine is a co-chair of the Australian Nuclear Free Alliance, in response to Premier Weatherill’s comments she said “The jury has listened to us, it’s time for the premier to listen to the jury. We don’t want this waste in South Australia. Not here, not anywhere”.
Aboriginal people travelled to Adelaide from across the state to share their concerns with the 350 jurors at the Indigenous session held on Saturday 5th November. Many others who would have liked to have been there were unable to attend but those present were able to convey their heartfelt concerns for protecting country and culture.
Vivienne McKenzie, Adnyamantha elder who has been campaigning to protect her traditional lands from radioactive waste told the jury “If you make the decision to let a waste dump be in this state, you will go down in history and have this on your conscience. What are you going to tell your children? ‘I was a juror, I gave the decision to have a waste dump.’ We will be history in the making. Really think about it, think from your heart, don’t think about money, there is no money in this. They are tricking everybody.”
In its recommendation, the jury stated “There is a lack of Aboriginal consent. We believe that the government should accept that the Elders have said no and stop ignoring their opinions. The Aboriginal people of South Australia (and Australia) continue to be neglected and ignored by all levels of government instead of being respected and treated as equals.”
Sue Coleman-Haseldine concluded:” ANFA members are pleased that the Jurors listened to the voices heard at the Indigenous session. Now it’s time for the Premier to listen too.”
Today’s statement is also on the ANFA website http://www.anfa.org.au/time-for-premier-weatherill-to-listen-to-jury-on-radioactive-waste
Nuclear dump now South Australia 2018 election issue
Nuclear fuel cycle: Opposition says Jay Weatherill’s dream of SA nuclear dump ‘is now dead’, ABC News, 11 Nov 16 By Leah MacLennan Opposition Leader Steven Marshall has announced he will not support the building of a high-level nuclear waste facility in South Australia, saying there is too much at risk…….Citizens’ Jury effectively exploded South Australian Labor govt’s nuclear plans
South Australian ‘citizens’ jury’ rejects nuclear dump, Green Left RENFREY CLARKE. Adelaide, November 11, 2016 To the fury of business spokespeople, South Australia’s “Citizens’ Jury on Nuclear Waste” has effectively exploded plans by the state Labor government to host the world’s largest nuclear waste dump.
The jury was intended by Premier Jay Weatherill to lend his scheme a garnish of popular consent. But in their final report on November 6, the jurors instead concluded that the dump plan should not go ahead “under any circumstances”. The vote was overwhelming, with two-thirds of jury members opposing the government’s projections.
Both as science and public policy, the jury’s finding made superb sense. But the verdict was more than that.
From the ordinary working people of South Australia, it was a message to their “betters”: “Be damned. We don’t trust you to defend our interests. Given the chance, we’d send you to hell.”
It was like Brexit. Or the street parties held when Margaret Thatcher died.
To reach their verdict, the jurors — initially numbering 350 and chosen as a representative slice of society — defied an intensive propaganda campaign mounted by the state authorities over several years at a reported cost of $10 million.
The government, Weatherill insisted from the outset, would never go ahead with its dump scheme unless the population, including indigenous people, was shown to be solidly behind the plan. To make the case for the proposal, a Royal Commission on the Nuclear Fuel Cycle was held, headed by former South Australian Governor Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce. The commission’s final report, key sections of it drafted by nuclear industry consultants, was delivered in May.
As anticipated, the commission urged constructing a “deep repository” to house as much as a third of the world’s current stock of high-level reactor wastes. Most of the immense cost, South Australians were promised, would be borne by client countries anxious to rid themselves of a growing mountain of spent nuclear fuel. The eventual net flow of revenues to the South Australian government was put at a dazzling $51 billion.
Nuclear spruikers
Following the royal commission was a “consultation” program dubbed by critics the “nuclear roadshow”. For months, teams of pro-nuclear spruikers toured the state’s urban centres. Supposedly seeking the views of the population on nuclear issues, program staffers mounted slick presentations uncritically promoting the commission’s findings.
Pounding still broader numbers of South Australians into line was a drum-beat of pro-nuclear articles in the Murdoch-owned Adelaide Advertiser.
Within the government’s strategy the role of the Citizens’ Jury, which met for the first time in June, was to produce a report voicing at least conditional assent to the dump plans. Weatherill and his cabinet would then have claimed public support for beginning the process, predicted eventually to cost taxpayers $300–600 million, that would see the sites for interim and final dumps chosen, the location selected for a dedicated port, and prospective clients scouted.
Though strong on the rhetoric of “consultative leadership” and “deliberative democracy”, the Weatherill government clearly did not mean to let in-depth debate get in the way of a suitable jury verdict. Control over the jury process was handed to a team of “facilitators” put together by the firm DemocracyCo. The latter compiled a list of 160 “expert witnesses”, skewed strongly towards nuclear advocates, to address the jurors.
A script drawn up by the facilitators would rush the jurors through hurried workshops, many held simultaneously. Jurors would have little chance to question witnesses at length, or to gain a feel for the broad progress of the discussion.
The government’s ploys seemed watertight. But on November 6, they were shown to have failed completely.
“Multiple threads of concern are present that undermine the confidence of jurors in the Royal Commission report’s validity,” the jury’s final report stated. “These concerns collectively combine to affect a powerful NO response.”
“Green activists kill inquiry”
What had gone wrong? In the view of Nigel McBride, chief executive of the peak association Business SA, the jurors had been got at by “green activists determined to kill further inquiry”.
“They ran an absolutely undiluted campaign of fear and misinformation,” McBride was quoted by the Advertiseras saying: “The people who were going to die in a ditch over this were the naysayers, the rest of us were calling for an informed investigation … It’s disappointing. An extraordinary amount of effort and resources and time has gone into it.”
The truth is less sinister. Chief Executive of the Conservation Council of SA Craig Wilkins pinpointed it in a press release:
“The nuclear industry likes to push a myth that the more people get to understand nuclear issues, the more supportive they are. Well, 350 South Australians have spent over 40 hours hearing about a nuclear dump for SA and the more they heard about it, the less they liked [it].”
The real problem that brought the nuclear dumpsters undone was simple: before a demanding audience that had other sources of information, the pro-nuclear side was incapable of putting forward convincing arguments.
Dissatisfied with the witnesses on offer, the jurors invited experts of their own choice, to talk to them, including Friends of the Earth anti-nuclear campaigner Jim Green, Australia Institute Chief Economist Richard Denniss, and University of South Australia Adjunct Professor Richard Blandy, all incisive public critics of the dump scheme.
The jury’s final report is not a polished document. Those who worked on it, however, obviously took their task with enormous seriousness. Their rejection of the pro-dump case, it is fair to say, rested on two main grounds: the refusal by the dump’s proponents to address the objections of traditional indigenous landowners and the gross flaws in the economic case for the dump as put forward by the royal commission.
As related by the Adelaide Independent, Weatherill in the past had “told a national television audience that a dump would ‘require essentially the explicit consent of traditional owners’ and that ‘if it did not exist, it wouldn’t happen’.”
In a two-hour session before the whole Citizens’ Jury, more than a dozen well-known Indigenous elders made it plain that no consent was being given or ever would be.
“Indigenous, community and social consent is absolutely required,” the jury’s report notes. “Currently not provided and a resounding ‘No’…”
The economic case for the dump, prepared for the royal commission by the nuclear industry consulting firm Jacobs MCM, is savaged in the report. “Many (jurors) have no confidence in the economics of the project. … The assumptions made (as) to potential income are based on assumptions with little support.”
Eighty-two per cent of the jurors, the report notes, were inclined to view the economic risks of the scheme as too great. https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/south-australian-%E2%80%98citizens%E2%80%99-jury%E2%80%99-rejects-nuclear-dump
Time to dump the nuclear dump
The Greens welcome indications from the State Opposition today that the proposed international high-level nuclear waste dump for South Australia will soon be just a bad dream.
“From Day One, the Greens have said that this project is ill-conceived, economically reckless and posed enormous reputational damage for our State,” said Mark Parnell MLC, Parliamentary Leader, Greens SA.
“Following the Citizens’ Jury’s overwhelming rejection of the dump last weekend, the Government now needs to step in quickly and announce the project to be over.
“One thing that everyone has agreed is that without social consent, the project can’t proceed. With the opposition now apparently siding with the Greens, it is clear that Parliament will reject any move to progress a nuclear dump in SA.
“South Australia’s economic future should be driven through green jobs, renewable energy, advanced manufacturing and promoting our GM-free fresh produce,” concluded Mark Parnell.
Nuclear lobby loses support of its top business stooge, Nigel McBride
DUMPED: Nuclear repository “dead” as Marshall draws election battleline, InDaily, Tom Richardson, 11 Nov 16 Jay Weatherill has lost his fiercest advocate for a nuclear waste dump, a proposal that appears to have no hope of proceeding, with Business SA chief Nigel McBride telling InDaily today the plan was now “dead”. As Liberal leader Steven Marshall this morning intensified his position against proceeding any further with planning for a future high-level repository, and days after a citizens’ jury flatly rejected the proposal, McBride said: “Between the Liberals and the citizens’ jury, the thing is dead.”
His resignation that “realpolitik” would not allow any further investigation of the plan – which a royal commission had estimated would pump billions of dollars into the state’s economy – followed the Opposition Leader unilaterally withdrawing his party’s support ahead of a partyroom meeting on Monday……..
[Labor Premier Jay Weatherill] refused to concede the project was doomed, reiterating that the Government would assess the fruits of a broader community consultation before deciding a path forward – prompting Marshall to declare the issue a key election battleground…….
Crucially, Marshall today stamped his authority on the partyroom decision, saying: “We’ll have our discussion on Monday [but] I’m quite confident we’ll make a decision that we won’t support any further investigation of this proposal.”
“I’ve been out talking to the people of SA, and my parliamentary colleagues have been out talking to people of SA… the people of SA do not support this proposal, there’s too much economic risk…….
Marshall’s manoeuvre today appears to have imposed an insurmountable one, though he was clear the “death knell” was sounded by the decision of the citizens’ jury – a process he has consistently derided…..
[Nigel McBride said] between the Liberals and the citizens’ jury, the thing is dead. “I’m not happy about it, but we’ll have to live with it.”McBride said that “having put it in the hands of the jurors, the realpolitik of this is the only way it would have got up was with the absolute support of both sides of politics”. “It was always a long shot,” he said……http://indaily.com.au/news/local/2016/11/11/dumped-nuclear-repository-dead-as-marshall-draws-election-battleline/
South Australian nuclear waste plan – “dead and buried” say Liberals
Premier fails to garner support from SA public for nuclear waste dump claims Opposition leader Marshall Sheradyn Holderhead Political Reporter, The Advertiser November 10, 2016 THE push to establish a nuclear waste dump in South Australia is “all but dead and buried”, Opposition Leader Steven Marshall has declared.
Before returning from visiting the world’s most advanced nuclear disposal facility, Mr Marshall told The Advertiser it was clear from Finland’s experience that the public had to be on board.
“Personally, I have a much greater ambition for SA than becoming the world’s nuclear dump,” he said.
Mr Marshall said the decision that two-thirds of the citizen’s jury did not want the proposal pursued under any circumstance was “a complete failure to get the public onside”.
“Finland is the world leader in creating a permanent repository for nuclear waste. They have spent 40 years getting to this point. And that’s just for their own waste,” Mr Marshall said.
“The clear message here is that this policy from (Premier) Jay Weatherill — that he could receive a Royal Commission report and then make a decision within a matter of months — was ill-conceived. The things they (Finland) have achieved took decades, not months.
“The Citizen’s Jury result showed that Jay Weatherill could not be trusted to deliver on such a significant project. He couldn’t even get Gillman right.”
Today, a group of environmentalists will hand Mr Weatherill a petition with 35,000 signatures calling on the Government to abandon plans for a nuclear waste dump.
The group includes indigenous leaders Enice Marsh, Lesley Coulthard, Regina and Vivianne McKenzie, Tony Clark, Karina and Rose Lester and representatives from conservation groups.
Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner Dave Sweeney said burying nuclear waste in SA would leave an “unwelcome toxic legacy for hundreds of thousands of years”.
Mr Marshall said Finland’s Onkalo nuclear waste disposal facility was “impressive”.
He said that while he was not worried about the safety of such a facility, he had “serious concerns” about economic return. “The longer we look at this issue, the more questions are raised about the viability of this project,” he said. “Nothing I saw in Finland waylaid those concerns.”
A Liberal joint party room meeting would be held on Monday to discuss Mr Marshall’s report from Finland and to hear from Liberal MPs Rob Lucas and Dan van Holst Pellekaan, who were members of the parliamentary committee investigating the proposal.
Earlier this week, Mr Weatherill said the Government would wait for a community views report that includes results from 30,000 online surveys and in-person feedback provided by 16,000 people, before making a decision on how to proceed.
He said the jury decision would be given “substantial weight” in the final government position to be announced to Parliament before the end of the year.
The Government expects to receive the community views report, compiled by consultants, early next week.
A blow to nuclear front group “Ecomodernists” -South Australian Citizens Jury verdict
No way! South Australians reject international nuclear waste dump http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2988308/no_way_south_australians_reject_international_nuclear_waste_dump.html Jim Green, The Ecologist, 9 November 2016
An officially convened 350-strong Citizens’ Jury has decisively rejected South Australia’s plans to import over half a million tonnes of high and intermediate level nuclear waste for long term storage, writes Jim Green. This has dealt a powerful blow against the project from which it is unlikely to ever recover, and represents a major victory for campaigners, indigenous Australians and economic sanity.
On Sunday November 6, two-thirds of the 350 members of a South Australian government-initiated Citizens’ Jury rejected “under any circumstances” the government’s plan to import 138,000 tonnes of high-level nuclear waste and 390,000 cubic metres of intermediate-level nuclear waste as a money-making venture.
The Jury was a key plank of the government’s attempt to manufacture support for the dump plan, and followed the SA Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission which released its final report in May 2016.
The Royal Commission had a strong pro-nuclear bias in its composition but still rejected – on economic grounds – almost all of the proposals it considered: uranium conversion and enrichment, nuclear fuel fabrication, conventional and ‘Generation IV’ nuclear power reactors, and spent fuel reprocessing.
Australia’s handful of self-styled ‘ecomodernists’ or ‘pro-nuclear environmentalists’ united behind a push to import spent fuel and to use some of it to fuel ‘integral fast reactors’. They would have expected to persuade the stridently pro-nuclear Royal Commission to endorse their ideas.
But the Royal Commission completely rejected the proposal, noting in its report
- that advanced fast reactors are unlikely to be feasible or viable in the foreseeable future;
- that the development of such a first-of-a-kind project would have high commercial and technical risk;
- that there is no licensed, commercially proven design and development to that point would require substantial capital investment;
- and that electricity generated from such reactors has not been demonstrated to be cost competitive with current light water reactor designs.
The ecomodernists weren’t deterred. They hoped that the nuclear waste import plan would proceed and that it would lay the foundations for the later development of fast reactors in SA. Now it seems that the waste import plan will be abandoned, and the ecomodernists are inconsolable.
The SA government will come under strong pressure to abandon the waste import plan in the wake of the Citizens’ Jury’s vote. Roman Orszanski, climate and energy campaigner with Friends of the Earth Adelaide, said: “Three thousand people protested against the proposed nuclear waste dump outside Parliament House on October 15 and there will be more protests and bigger protests if the SA government attempts to push ahead.”…… http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2988308/no_way_south_australians_reject_international_nuclear_waste_dump.html
At last – Australia to ratify Paris climate change agreement
Australia to ratify Paris climate change agreement, despite concerns Donald Trump will withdraw, ABC News, 9 Nov 16
The 2015 agreement came into force last week and has been ratified by 103 countries and covers 70 per cent of global emissions.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull described the agreement as “a watershed and turning point” that spurred international action on climate change……
Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said the agreement was in Australia’s national interest and would provide opportunity for Australian businesses.
“We believe through the use of technology and research and science and innovation, there will be many opportunities for Australian businesses,” she said……http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-10/federal-government-to-ratify-paris-climate-change-agreement/8012696
Labor Party pressure on South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill to dump nuclear plan
Jay Weatherill will be forced to abandon nuclear waste storage plan, Labor sources say
Premier Weatherill’s nuclear political quagmire (a martyr for the nuclear religion?)
With citizens dissenting, Labor party members preparing for internal debate and anticipation building among nuclear industrialists, the Weatherill government has waded into a political quagmire, in which it now stands waste-deep.
Simplify Day won’t ease nuclear tension in South Australia, Online opinion, By Dan Monceaux, 9 Nov 16 “……If support for future high-level nuclear waste storage had been demonstrated by the Citizens Jury, or granted by Traditional Owners, repealing legislative barriers would have been the necessary next step before opening the gate for further investment. The Jury’s report recommends against such reforms, casting doubt on the nature and content of the policy announcement expected later this month.
The Jury has also called for the State Government to draw no more from the public purse. To date the State has committed $13 million dollars to the Royal Commission, Citizens’ Jury and ‘Get to Know Nuclear’ public relations campaigns combined.
The jury’s objections have no doubt stolen some wind from the sails of supporters. The Premier now risks compounding the identified problem of a lack of trust in government, if he is to announce any further financial commitment to explore the Commission’s proposal. Meanwhile, dissenting voices within the South Australian Labor party will likely draw confidence from this as the party heads towards a contentious Special Convention on the topic. Continue reading
Citizens Jury clearly examined the economic danger of importing nuclear wastes
Clear-headed citizens’ jury refused to be dazzled ANALYSIS, InDaily, Richard Blandy, 7 Nov 16 The citizens’ jury’s rejection of a high-level nuclear waste dump for South Australia was based on courage and common sense, writes economics commentator Richard Blandy – one of the expert witnesses called to address the jury. My fellow expert economic witnesses, chosen by a formal voting process by all the members of the citizens’ jury, were Dr Mark Diesendorf , a former Principal Research Scientist in the CSIRO and former Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Technology, Sydney), Dr Richard Dennis, Chief Economist at The Australia Institute, Barbara Pocock, Emeritus Professor of Economics at UniSA and a member of the SA Economic Development Board, and me.
All of these expert witnesses opposed the royal commission’s proposal to establish a high level nuclear waste dump in South Australia.
DemocracyCo, the body running the citizens’ jury process, added to this group Dr Tim Johnson, Project Manager/Consultant at Jacobs Engineering, which undertook the analysis of the nuclear dump for the royal commission. Dr Johnson was the project manager for Jacobs’ work on the cost analysis and business case for the dump.
Naturally enough, Dr Johnson supported the royal commission’s proposal to establish the dump.
Dr Diesendorf, participating in proceedings through a Skype link to Sydney, said the dump proposal painted a scenario of huge financial risk which had not been adequately addressed. South Australia could only proceed if it operated under two delusions – a delusion of grandeur and a delusion of being able to manage large risks that had not been adequately addressed.
I noted that there is no global market for high level nuclear waste at present so the price we could expect to get was a guess. The forecast profitability of the dump rested on highly optimistic assumptions, and the dump could easily lose money (on the Royal Commission’s own analysis in Figure J6) instead of being a bonanza. As Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis said in his recent State Budget: “There is no silver bullet … [including] the nuclear royal commission.”
Richard Dennis pointed out that South Australia had already spent $10 million on the nuclear dump proposal, but still did not have a cost/benefit analysis. The price we would get for storing nuclear fuel was exaggerated and the volumes we would store were exaggerated. Would no other country enter the market if there was a bonanza happening in South Australia? One of the key assumptions of economics is that huge profits will attract competitors. If the project were likely to make so much money, why wouldn’t BHP be wanting to invest in it, or at least spend the next $10 million to explore the project further?
Barbara Pocock noted that all the economists agreed the dump was not a goer. In an earlier session, Dr Johnson had also agreed that the proposal needed a lot more work. It was a complicated project that had never been done before. At a projected cost of $145 billion, it was equivalent in financial size to 70 new Royal Adelaide Hospitals. A cost overrun would be very easy. The SA proposal was 20 times bigger than what the Finns are building. The profits come from holding the waste in inexpensive temporary storage for a very long time – but nothing will go wrong! We should not be dazzled and desperate. We should remember the State Bank – which cost us $3 billion and 20 years of economic confidence.
Tim Johnson summarised and defended the analysis that Jacobs had undertaken for the royal commission, which is contained in accessible reports, including the royal commission report itself. I will not go through this material again, here.
Most questions from the members of the citizens’ jury were directed to Dr Johnson, with other members of the panel commenting from time-to-time.
Late in the afternoon last Sunday, the 350 people of the citizens’ jury reported on their findings, the most important of which is reproduced below (supported by two thirds of the jurors):
No, not an option for the state under any circumstances for reasons of consent, economics, trust and safety.
· Under no circumstances should South Australia pursue opportunity to store and dispose of nuclear waste from other countries for reasons of consent, economics, trust and safety……… http://indaily.com.au/news/business/analysis/2016/11/08/clear-headed-citizens-jury-refused-to-be-dazzled/
Weatherill champion for nuclear waste, likely to bite the political dust
Citizens’ jury decision spells nuclear disaster for Weatherill, Crikey, The citizens’ jury bombshell has left Jay Weatherill facing an unwinnable political conundrum, writes InDaily senior reporter Tom Richardson, 7 Nov 16 And either way, he will have to abandon one of two projects most closely associated with his premiership………nuclear was never genuinely on the political agenda until Weatherill put it there. It was in the Liberal policy grab-bag entitled “we support this but can’t be arsed genuinely advocating for it”, and on the extended wishlist of people like Business SA’s Nigel McBride…….
Steven Marshall wasn’t here to turn the knife on behalf of the oposition, because he is currently touring nuclear facilities in Finland, to make up for the bipartisan tour he pulled out of back in September.
Bipartisan support may be important, but nonetheless, for a nuclear waste dump to succeed it needed a champion from the nominal political left. And in putting it firmly on the agenda, Weatherill anointed himself that champion…….
If he forges on with the waste dump, he will be thumbing his nose at the findings of the citizens’ jury, effectively abandoning any pretence of consultative leadership and “riding roughshod” over public opinion — the very thing he criticised about the Rann administration.
If, however, he takes the jury’s unequivocal red light as an unnavigable road-block, he might as well hand back the keys right now.
For that will entail, once again, a term of sound and fury signifying nothing.
Weatherill has gambled plenty on the assumption that the will of the jury will reflect a grudging admiration for his “boldness” in putting the nuclear issue on the agenda.
Instead, it reflected a complete disconnect between the government and the governed, a lack of trust and a lack of faith that this administration — or any other — can deliver on such a proposal……
In an intriguing interview in September, Weatherill suggested his “courage” in tackling risky reform would be rewarded at the ballot box………
In the end, the most tangible upshot of the millions of dollars and thousands of hours spent on the question of a prospective high-level nuclear waste dump could be that the federal government’s comparatively uncontroversial low-to-medium-level repository is quietly green-lit.
In other words, the Government’s grandest achievement will have been to help allow something that it successfully blocked 12 years ago. (Incidentally, blocking it back in 2004 was also regarded as its grandest achievement at the time.)
The citizens’ jury has exposed a fatal flaw of the Weatherill administration’s brand right now. Like the nuclear waste on which it has staked its future, it is both toxic and heading for a deep hole.
Weatherill has shown himself deft at extricating himself from such situations in the past, but with little more than a year before he faces the polls he is haunted by a prophesy of his own creation.
“You ain’t seen nothing yet,” he warned us…And two years on, he couldn’t have been more right…….https://www.crikey.com.au/2016/11/07/citizens-jury-goes-nuclear-on-weatherills-political-dreams/
1 This month.
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
19 May – Webinar- Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-05-19 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-05-19 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
20 May – Webinar – The dangerous world of AUKUS, US, military occupation and suppression of dissent
National Webinar, 20th May, 2026, 6.30pm AEST. Confronting laws restricting/suppressing protest speech and action
Speakers: Former Sen. Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna ,Arthur Rorris ,Jorgen Doyle, Sen David Shoebbridge,
Facilitator Kelley Tranter.
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 