THE CASE FOR A ROYAL COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE THE NUCLEAR ROYAL COMMISSION.
Jim Green, 3 Nov 16 No High Level International Nuclear Waste Dump in South Australia
The Nuclear Royal Commission was a disgraceful con-job from start to finish.
The SA government chose a nuclear advocate as Royal Commissioner.
The Royal Commissioner stacked his Advisory Committee with three strident nuclear advocates, ‘balanced’ by one token critic.
There wasn’t even one token nuclear critic on the Royal Commission’s staff.
And there isn’t even one token nuclear critic on the SA government’s Consultation & Response Agency which has been exerting influence on the Citizens’ Jury, and which also has strong influence over the statewide ‘consultation’ process (thinly-disguised promotion).
This morning the ABC reveals that the economic modelling commissioned by the Royal Commission was co-authored by the president and vice president of a group which aims to promote nuclear waste “solutions” and which also promotes nuclear power. A clear conflict of interest and an absolute disgrace. (www.abc.net.au/am/content/2016/s4568141.htm)
Royal Commissioner Kevin Scarce told the ABC this morning:
“The conflict of interest would arise if they were the only source of information that we were using to assess the evaluation. They were not.”
Really? In fact, only one, conflicted consultant was used by the Royal Commission for economic modelling. The fanciful speculation of the conflicted consultant was heavily promoted in the Royal Commission’s report and is now being promoted as solid, factual information by the government’s Consultation & Response Agency.
THERE NEEDS TO BE A ROYAL COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
For a serious discussion on the economics of the plan to turn SA into the world’s high-level nuclear waste dump, see this submission from Prof. Richard Blandy: http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/…/upl…/2016/04/Blandy-Richard.pdf
And see also the report by the Australia Institute: http://www.tai.org.au/…/P222A%20Digging%20for%20answers%20-…
A “Minority Report” from South Australia’s Nuclear Citizens’ Jury?
Tim Bickmore Nuclear Citizens Jury Watch South Australia 2 Nov 16
There will be a ‘Minority Report’ & this is being actively collated by a designated juror who volunteered for the task. It’s focus will probably be upon alternate projects which would enhance the SA Great brand & demonstrate better options for the future direction of the SA economy.
The advice we were given at the table was that the legislation does not prohibit the next stages of investigation that are needed to fill the gaps identified in the extremely dubious case for this project. But even if they did this legislation applies only to spending public funds. If this project is such a financial bonanza as some proponents keep insisting it is then maybe the industry should fund the next stage of the feasibility study – and there is absolutely no barrier to spending industry rather than public funds to do this .
One juror gave me the question I’ve been searching for in all of this: Would you want to invest your superannuation funds in this project? If so please feel free to do so – I wouldn’t and I suspect most people with any financial nous (or sense of financial responsibility) wouldn’t either.” Australia https://www.facebook.com/groups/1172938779440750/
South Australian government focus groups Port Pirie – separates the sexes!
Kim Mavromatis No High Level International Nuclear Waste Dump in South Australia, 1 Nov 16 SA Government Nuclear Focus Group in Port Pirie last night.
I got into a SA Govnt Nuclear Focus Group session in Port Pirie last night. 9 
males – no females. There was an all female focus session before the all male session. Males and females were separated, why? Apparently females are predominately against the nuclear waste dumps and males are more open to it.The sniff of desperation in Jay Weatherill’s latest nuclear manipulations
apparatchiks, advisors and academics from both the nuclear industry BHP-Billiton/Santos et al and those in Defence that are pushing for nuclear submarines/capabilities, the Business Council of SA, and in concert with the Murdoch/MSM press, have precision-engineered this campaign to simultaneously blitzkrieg the people of SA with pro-nuke propaganda whilst purposefully obfuscating the SA proposal with that of the Federal government’s search for a dump of our indigenous low-level nuclear waste.
The confusion is of volition and the strategy’s outcome has been immensely effective nationally in not only keeping the topic out of the national spotlight in general but also to make any trickle of dissent that does appear nationally, such as summarised in the slogan “not in our backyard”, appear to be driven by self-interest and, therefore, it’s SA’s problem.
It’s the old divide and conquer with huge resources from both industry and the public purse.
That said, there are fault lines starting to appear in the juggernaut, such as the limited accommodation of the critics in the 2nd Citizens Jury Economic forum, and Weatherill’s failure to attain a mandate motion at least weekend’s ALP State Conference. There will be consternation and increased applied effort from all pro-nuke actors both to guard Weatherill’s back and ramp up inertia through glamorised, potentially high profile events such as the yet-another Nuclear Conference in Adelaide next month.
South Australian Labor comes up with the delaying tactic that Weatherill wanted
convention has delayed making a decision on the proposal for a nuclear waste dump in the state’s north. South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill has run the gauntlet of anti-nuclear protesters as Labor voted to put the question of establishing a high-level nuclear waste dump to a special party convention.
Mr Weatherill was heckled by several hundred anti-nuclear activists while entering the ALP state conference in Adelaide on Saturday, as they called on him to scrap the dump idea, which goes against current party policy.
Dave Sweeney, from the Australian Conservation Foundation, told the protesters South Australia was so much more than a dumping site.
“This is a bad idea, it’s a thought bubble that should have burst on day one,” Mr Sweeney said.
“We will not be burying waste, we will be burying this idea.”
The convention considered a number of motions related to the dump, including one calling for the government to hold a referendum on the issue.
Others called for the government to delay any decision until after the issue was discussed at the next national ALP conference while the Maritime Union of Australia urged the state government to “cease and desist” with any action to consider a dump of any kind.
However, the party endorsed a motion to have the issue put before a special convention at the conclusion of the community consultation process.
The state government remains committed to making a decision on the dump proposal by the end of the year ….http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/10/29/special-assembly-weigh-sa-nuclear-dump
The danger of nuclear waste transport, a topic pretty much ignored by the South Australian Nuclear Royal Commission
Jim Green, Facebook, 31 Oct 16 Numerous train derailments involving nuclear materials transport have been documented (but not in the Royal Commission’s report, of course).
Transport incidents and accidents are routine in countries with significant nuclear industries. For example a UK government database contains information on 1018 events from 1958 to 2011 (an average of 19 incidents each year). There were 187 events during the shipment of spent nuclear fuel flasks from 1958−2004 in the UK (an average of four per year) – 46% involved excess contamination and 24% involved collisions and/or low speed derailments.
Tax-payer funding goes to South Australian nuclear propaganda event Nov 15-16
The Weatherill government continues to break South Australia’s law against tax-payer funding of promotion of nuclear waste importing. Of course, they’ve been doing this for nearly two years now, with close to $10 million on the Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission, the Nuclear Citizens’ Juries and on the blanket of pro nuclear propaganda across the State.
The latest is A new conference called “Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle ’16 – Managing Radioactive Waste & Spent Nuclear Fuel” , being held in Adelaide on November 15-16 to discuss nuclear waste storage prospects.
Sponsors include the University of South Australia (a public university), ANSTO (a Federal gov’t agency) and UCL (whose Australian campus was publicly supported financially).
Victoria’s Point Lonsdale beach – just one example of rising sea levels
Rising sea levels, stronger waves speeding up Victorian coastal erosion, CSIRO says, ABC News 30 Oct 16 By Joanna Crothers Rising sea levels and more frequent storms are increasing the rate of erosion across Australia’s southern coastline, the CSIRO has said, while locals at one Victorian beach are concerned it is not safe for summer holidaymakers.
Key points:
- CSIRO warns of rising sea levels and a statewide trend of more storms
- Since 2010, Government has spent $450,000 on maintenance at Point Lonsdale
- In the past five years, erosion near Apollo Bay has increased from 8cm to one metre per year
Kathleen McInnes, a CSIRO sea level and coastal extremes expert, said more powerful waves were also contributing to the problem. “Sea levels have risen some 20 centimetres over the past 100 years, and are currently rising at about three millimetres per year,” she said. “There is also evidence that winds in the southern ocean are intensifying and this is driving a positive trend in wave energy reaching our coastline. “So this is creating a double whammy for coastal impacts.”
Individual storms have also become more frequent and intense, meaning beaches do not have as much time to recover after a harsh winter.”They’re driving higher waves which means a higher wave energy [is] reaching the shore,” Ms McInnes said.
Point Lonsdale beach ‘dangerous’, not ready for holidays The beachfront at Point Lonsdale, on the Bellarine Peninsula, has been badly eroded over the past decade and local residents said there was a risk children could slipping and cracking their heads open near the seawall…….http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-30/rising-sea-levels-speeding-up-coastal-erosion-csiro-says/7972924
The danger for Australia as Turnbull wants to change Australia’s environment act
None of these decisions would have been possible without the groups’ standing under Section 487 of the EPBC Act. Removing these provisions undermines the foundational objectives of Australia’s national environmental act at a time when its protective capabilities are needed most.
Turnbull wants to change Australia’s environment act – here’s what we stand to lose, The Conversation, Director of the Centre for Energy and Natural Resources Law, Deakin Law School, Deakin University October 31, 2016 Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is seeking changes to Australia’s national environment act to stop conservation groups from challenging ministerial decisions on major resource developments and other matters of environmental importance.
Turnbull is reviving a bid made by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott to abolish Section 487 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act) – a bid rejected in the Senate in 2015. If it goes ahead, the change will significantly diminish the functionality of the act.
The EPBC Act, introduced by the Howard government in 1999, has an established record of success. Judicial oversight of ministerial discretion, enabled by expanded standing under Section 487, has been crucial to its success.
Section 487 allows individuals and groups to challenge ministerial decisions on resources, developments and other issues under the EPBC Act. An organisation can establish standing by showing they have engaged in activities for the “protection or conservation of, or research into, the environment” within the previous two years. They must also show that their purpose is environmental protection.
Repealing this provision would remove the standing of these groups to seek judicial review of decisions. Standing would then revert to the common law position. That means parties would need to prove they are a “person aggrieved” by showing that their interests have been impacted directly.
Many environmental groups will be unable to satisfy the common law test, leaving a very small group of people with the right to request judicial review – essentially, the right to check that federal ministerial power under the EPBC Act has been exercised properly.
This is likely to have a devastating impact on fragile ecological systems and biodiversity conservation strategies.
This is particularly concerning given the dramatic changes affecting the environment from the expansion of onshore resource development and the acceleration of climate change.
Why do we have the EPBC Act?
The hypocrisy of attack on ‘foreign-funded’ environment groups
Why only “environment groups”? Why not take a look at the tax-deductible recipient status of all charities, such as the Institute of Public Affairs?
The IPA is using its tax-deductibility status to raise cash for a third edition of its climate science denial book Climate Change: The Facts, with contributions from US-based and UK-based contrarian scientists, alongside the likes of Clive James and Bjørn Lomborg.
Why the attack on ‘foreign-funded’ environment groups stinks of hypocrisy, Guardian, 
Graham Readfearn, 30 Oct 16 Supporters of coal projects want transparency and proper use of charity status – but only when they support their arguments You might have noticed that all of a sudden, Australians are supposed to be appalled by foreign interests getting in the way of us digging up as much coal as we want, thanks very much.
Last weekend the Australian newspaper started running stories based on a “revelation” from the inbox of John Podesta, the chairman of Democratic nominee for president Hillary Clinton’s election campaign.
One email forwarded to Podesta showed the philanthropic group the Sandler Foundation, based in San Francisco, was a funder of Australian group the Sunrise Project. The emails were published by WikiLeaks.
Sunrise, run by the former Greenpeace campaigner John Hepburn, has been involved in supporting some of the court cases brought against proposed coal projects – chiefly, the massive Adani coalmine in Queensland.
According to an editorial in the Australian, “thinking Australians” should be “appalled” by this news.
On the back of these stories, there have been shouts for more transparency, while Turnbull government ministers have used the coverage as a pivot to call for environment groups to be stripped of their charitable status. The climate change impacts of burning coal, meanwhile, have been summarily discounted or ignored.
So let us count the ways that Australians should not be “appalled” and, on the way, examine some of the bald hypocrisy that has been on display this week. Continue reading
Western Australia missing its opportunity to become a renewable energy superpower
WA must embrace dawn of renewable energy era or risk being left behind https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/oct/27/wa-must-embrace-dawn-of-renewable-energy-era-or-risk-being-left-behind Michael Lord
Western Australia could become a renewable energy superpower – if the government halts LNG expansion plans and creates an innovation fund
Last year the world’s governments finally got their act together on climate change, agreeing to limit global warming to well under two degrees. To meet this commitment, we need a rapid global transition to net zero greenhouse gas emissions. The fossil fuel age is over.
The new era, powered by renewable energy, will be swept in on a massive wave of investment. According to Beyond Zero Emissions’ report, Renewable Energy Superpower, the world will invest $US28tn in renewable energy and energy efficiency in the next 20 years.
But Western Australia risks being left behind. Here investors have poured more than $100bn into liquefied natural gas (LNG) over the past decade yet the state has little to show for it. Another $60bn is slated for LNG development, but with current low gas prices, the sense of that investment is questionable. Energy consumers fork out for coal-fired power that goes unused and endure endless debate about grid privatisation. Meanwhile Western Australia’s electricity-related emissions are rising, just as almost all other states are managing to reduce them.
The irony is that Western Australia should welcome the dawn of the renewable energy era. The state’s enormous resources of sunshine, wind and wave mean it could become a renewable energy superpower of the future. Our report shows how Australia’s world-beating renewable energy resources represent a huge economic opportunity. Incredibly the report shows that in Western Australia alone, there is enough wind and solar, available at competitive prices, to provide almost 9% of the world’s energy every year. In other words Western Australia has more renewable energy than fossil energy. Continue reading
Australian to head Green Climate Fund
29 October 2016. The Green Climate Fund will this year approve hundreds of billions of dollars towards projects that help poorer nations mitigate the effects of climate change and transition to low-emission technologies.
Howard Barmsey, a former Australian climate change envoy and former head of the Global Green Growth Institute, will lead the GCF which will play a role in trying to fulfil the Paris Agreement to limit the world’s temperature increase to below 2 degrees Celsius.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/saturdayextra/green-climate-fund/7976180
The Road to a Treaty
By Jeff McMullen https://newmatilda.com/2016/10/27/the-road-to-a-treaty/
27 October 2016: “Our nation’s future lies in settling the demons of our past.
A Treaty with Australia’s First Peoples is the best path to get us there,
writes Jeff McMullen. …
“This leads me to my major proposal.
To end the continuing tragedy of the poverty and widespread inequality endured by our First People in their own land,
a national Treaty should recognise Indigenous law and custom,
immediately settle the remaining Native Title claims stuck in the courts and
also guarantee Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people the sub-surface mineral rights to the wealth of their lands.
“My logic is that the depths of poverty, welfare dependence, chronic illness, housing shortages, unemployment, over-incarceration and suicide
impacting so many of Australia’s 750,000 Indigenous people, can only be overcome through
a transformational shift of some of the bounty of this land that is rightfully theirs. … “
New South Wales households lose feedin tariff benefits
Households face steep hike in power charges as solar subsidies end, The Age, 28 Oct 16 Brian Robins Tens of thousands of households are facing a surge in their electricity bills from the start of the new year as the NSW government’s subsidy for rooftop solar panels expires.
This could add more than $1600 to the annual electricity bill as the so-called ‘feed-in tariff’, the price received for surplus electricity sold into the electricity grid, is slashed by as much as 90 per cent in some cases.
Under the original government program, households which installed solar systems received as much as 60¢ a kilowatt hour for surplus electricity sold into the grid. This will fall to 6¢, or possibly less, depending on the deals done with your electricity retailer. The state government’s pricing regulator IPART, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, has recommended electricity companies pay 5.5-7.2¢ per kilowatt hour for electricity bought from households with solar systems…….http://www.theage.com.au/business/households-face-steep-hike-in-power-charges-as-solar-subsidies-end-20161028-gscu4s.html
Nuclear Waste Importing: latest comments for Citizens Jury on Your Say site
The South Australian government set up this site for comments on the plan. Comments close at 5 pm today (30 October). I wonder if the Citizens Jury members will have managed to see them – the vast majority of comments were very negative about the plan Here are some of the most recent:
Claudio Pompili 28 Oct 2016
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 
I was shocked to read in 26 October’s InDaily:
Jay spruiks nuclear expansion as an agent of economic change
Jay Weatherill has told a nuclear industry forum in Adelaide he is personally convinced of the potential for an expansion of South Australia’s role in the fuel cycle, framing the push as part of his ambition to forge a “new economy”.
It appears that Premiere Weatherill has at last come out and played his pro-nuke card. So much for his publicly-avowed position that he would make up his mind when the whole process of the RC has been undertaken. It’s patently clear that he’s been captured by the nuclear industry and foisted an expensive sham of a royal commission onto the SA public, which overwhelmingly has repeatedly been opposed to expansion of nuclear in this state.
The Royal Commission process and the biased ‘findings’ of its subsequent Report are deeply flawed on a range of issues from the dubious economics right through to the non-existent risk assessment. No project of this magnitude, scope, cost and risks into the far-distant future, should be entertained without a comprehensive Risk Assessment Plan. The Report does not meet the criterion in the Terms of Reference to present “the risks and opportunities associated with establishing and operating those facilities” It does present the supposed opportunities but dismisses the risks and assures us that risk assessments will be done in due course. Continue reading →