South Australian Labor’s push for nuclear waste importing is unravelling already
The case presented by the nuclear dumpsters is dissolving. Outspoken opposition from traditional owners is exposing, as a racist charade, the government’s attempts to manufacture “consent”.
The people of the upper Spencer Gulf cities will not be reconciled to having trainloads of lethal wastes rumbling past their doors for the next century. And the economic case for the dump scheme would merit an “F” in any respectable business course.
Nuclear waste dump case unravels, World News Report, 13 July 16 , Green Left By Renfrey Clarke Armed with the findings of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, South Australian Labor Premier Jay Weatherill is pressing ahead with plans to import as much as a third of the world’s high-level nuclear reactor waste and store it in the state’s outback.
There are compelling reasons to reject it. The project, it now emerges, could go ahead only over resistance from Indigenous traditional landowners, some of whom took part in the Lizard Bites Back convergence in early July.
There are serious environmental dangers in unloading the wastes, maintaining them above ground for decades while they cool and transporting them for final burial. Tens of thousands of people would be at risk.
Several devastating critiques have also shown that the economic case for the scheme is largely guesswork. Conceivably, the project would run at a loss — while burdening South Australians with the costs and dangers of tending to the world’s greatest single radiation hazard, effectively forever…….
Consultation?
Another element of the pro-nuclear “educational process” is to be the work of a “Nuclear Consultation and Response Agency” that will visit “all major regional centres, more than 50 remote towns and all Aboriginal communities” in a “dedicated program to ensure all South Australians can have their say about the state’s future involvement in the nuclear industry”.
There is no guarantee, however, that the massaging will work. For all the loot promised by the Advertiser, public opinion for and against the waste dump plan seems evenly split and active resistance is growing.
In mid-May Indigenous, health, union, faith and conservation groups joined in setting up a No Dump Alliance. On June 25, some 80 protestors heckled Weatherill as he arrived to address the opening session of his first “citizens’ jury”.
A 200-strong July protest at Roxby Downs, Lizard Bites Back, also condemned the government’s plan for a nuclear waste dump on Indigenous land. Spokesperson Nectaria Calan said the convergence was focused on the connections between uranium mining and nuclear waste. “A responsible approach to managing nuclear waste would begin with stopping its production”, she said.
The case presented by the nuclear dumpsters is dissolving. Outspoken opposition from traditional owners is exposing, as a racist charade, the government’s attempts to manufacture “consent”.
The people of the upper Spencer Gulf cities will not be reconciled to having trainloads of lethal wastes rumbling past their doors for the next century. And the economic case for the dump scheme would merit an “F” in any respectable business course. https://world.einnews.com/article/334731841/OM4SBscz5Dp42697
Uranium price slump further reduces ERA sales
ERA uranium output slumps THE AUSTRALIAN JULY 13, 2016 Mill maintenance sharply reduced June quarter production by Ranger uranium miner Energy Resources of Australia.
Production for the period, characterised by a further fall in the already depressed spot price for uranium to $US26.40 a pound, slumped 18 per cent to 489 tonnes.
The 68 per cent-owned Rio Tinto subsidiary had been reduced to treating stockpiled material and was accumulating cash to cover the estimated rehabilitation cost of the mine, inside Kakadu, of more than $500 million.
Recently it reported it was holding cash of $433m, prompting Rio to offer a $100m credit facility to ensure rehabilitation costs were met…….
ERA had been planning to extend its mine life by developing the Ranger 3 Deeps deposit, but Rio and the traditional owners did not support the plan, meaning ERA’s existing Ranger authority to operate is set to end in 2021.
ERA has nevertheless preserved the option of an eventual development of Ranger 3 Deeps by committing to spending about $4m annually on care and maintenance of the exploration decline and related infrastructure.
The option was the key finding of the group’s strategic review, released in May, after it was clear the support of Rio and the traditional owners was not forthcoming.
Rio’s no-interest rehabilitation credit facility came with the condition that ERA did not seek to extend production at Ranger beyond 2020 by developing the Ranger 3 Deeps.
ERA previously said that while it expected to fully fund the rehabilitation, it might have to draw on the Rio funding in some situations…..http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/companies/era-uranium-output-slumps/news-story/08e7df8b9a063dc6c8baa203d471f0ff
Indigenous rangers partner with scientists in researching coral bleaching
Indigenous rangers on the frontline of coral bleaching in remote Australia, ABC News By the National Reporting Team’s Kate Wild, 12 July 16 [Excellent pictures and video] In April this year Indigenous rangers from the Crocodile Islands received an alarming photograph of a coral reef off the coast of Arnhem Land. Leonard Bowaynu, who has fished the same reef since he was teenager, had seen small scattered patches of white coral before — but never anything this extensive.
“We used to go out, catch fish from the reefs. I never seen coral turning to white, like around the island or reef,” he said. Concerned by the image, rangers travelled to the area with a drone and GoPro camera to collect further evidence.
Michael Mungula said it was the first time Yolgnu people had seen the coral bleached white at that reef.
“At Murrangga [Island] we never seen white coral there before, during the 50s, 60s and 70s. But we seen it now, 2016.” “We need scientists to come here and do research in the Crocodile Islands,” Mr Mungula said. Meanwhile, 300 kilometres south-east, in waters around Groote Eylandt, Indigenous Rangers were watching giant clams turn white as well.
Anindilyakwa Rangers on Groote Eylandt began trialling the cultivation of giant blue-lipped clams (Tridacna squamosa) five years ago.
But in April the rangers noticed a number of the clams had turned white. Rick Taylor, the ranger manager, sent underwater footage of the clams to the ABC. He said it was first time he had seen the clams bleach since the trial was established in 2011.
With the two ranger groups’ permission, the ABC sent images of the Crocodile Islands coral and clams from Groote Eylandt to marine scientist Andrew Heyward at the Australian Institute of Marine Science.
Dr Heyward said the aerial photograph from the Crocodile Islands provided the first confirmation of a bleaching event in Arnhem Land. “It appears that in those areas checked it was severe,” he said. He said the photograph Crocodile Islands Rangers had received was confirmation of a massive bleaching event over the reef.
“The comments by the local rangers that they have never seen it [like this] before in their country is particularly telling that things are unprecedented, at least in human generational time frames,” Dr Heyward told the ABC……..
Skilled observers a precious commodity Dr Heyward said Indigenous rangers were able monitor environmental shifts in parts of the country most people cannot reach, and said he was keen for scientists and rangers to work together……Ranger groups have expressed enthusiasm for equal partnerships with scientists. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-11/indigenous-rangers-on-the-frontline-of-coral-bleaching/7557646
Enice Marsh at the Nuclear Citizens’ Jury – about the Federal nuclear waste dump
“……..JUROR: Enice, you are representing all of the Adnyamathanha people.
Nuclear Waste Business Plan from Hell – South Australia
Blandy conveyed his objections to the royal commission — which substantially ignored them. Instead, the commission continued putting its trust in Jacobs MCM, which it had engaged to perform its financial modelling.
Jacobs, The Australia Institute notes, “consult extensively to the nuclear industry and have an interest in its expansion and continuation”
Nuclear waste dump case unravels, World News Report, 13 July 16 , Green Left By Renfrey Clarke “…….That the environmental and health risks posed by the international waste scheme are alarming and the economics could well be prohibitive are being ignored by the scheme’s supporters.
In its February “tentative findings” and in its May 9 final report, the state government’s royal commission set the hucksters drooling with its view that a high-level waste dump “could generate more than $100 billion income in excess of expenditure over the 120-year life of the project”.
Even this sum was too modest for the Murdoch-owned Adelaide Advertiser as it sought to herd public opinion behind the government’s plans. Working only from revenues and ignoring costs, the newspaper declared on February 17 that “a gigantic $445 billion would be pumped into the state’s finances over at least 70 years”.
The truth is that the economic case for the project rests on such wild assumptions that any competent entrepreneur would view it as a business plan from hell.
Hopes of a monster pay-out were savaged during March when The Australia Institute published a detailed analysis of the waste dump scheme.
Retired professor of economics Richard Blandy, the economic commentator for the Independent Daily, exploded the royal commission’s guesswork still more definitively on June 7.
The figure for net income of $100 billion, Blandy explained, was based on a completely fanciful estimate of the price that South Australia could expect to obtain for storing spent reactor fuel.
To obtain this estimate, of $1.75 million per tonne of heavy metal, the commission had assumed that the South Australian authorities of the future would have perfect knowledge of the maximum price that potential customers were willing to pay and that the state would face no competitors in the waste storage market-place.
The reality, as Blandy pointed out, is that India and China — to name just two countries — have extensive nuclear power industries and are highly likely to create their own waste repositories.
For these countries to add extra capacity to accommodate international customers would be relatively cheap — and much cheaper than could be managed by an Australian dump relying exclusively on imported waste.
The “$100 billion” figure also reflected an estimate that 37 countries that now have nuclear power industries — or that might someday set them up — would contract with South Australia to store 50% of their reactor waste.
But what if this estimate was grossly inflated?
If South Australia’s dump attracted only a quarter of the wastes targeted, Blandy calculated, and if the price received equalled the costs of building storage capacity in Sweden or Finland (costs, we must assume, that would be high compared to those in India or China) then the South Australian dump would lose money.
Blandy conveyed his objections to the royal commission — which substantially ignored them. Instead, the commission continued putting its trust in Jacobs MCM, which it had engaged to perform its financial modelling.
Jacobs, The Australia Institute notes, “consult extensively to the nuclear industry and have an interest in its expansion and continuation”…… plans.https://world.einnews.com/article/334731841/OM4SBscz5Dp42697
Big Business and right-wing Labor are backing nuclear waste project, despite its dodgy economics
Nuclear waste dump case unravels, World News Report, 13 July 16 , Green Left By Renfrey Clarke “……….Business backing The waste dump project may not have good arguments, but it certainly has powerful friends. “We’re absolute advocates,” Nigel McBride, CEO of the industry and commerce peak body Business SA told the Independent Dailyon June 17. “We’re now absolutely saying this is not only feasible but absolutely viable.
“I can tell you Business SA is overtly advocating for a high-level nuclear waste facility in SA, subject to an educational process that will get social consent.”
If this typifies the business skills of South Australia’s moneyed elite, then the state’s economic woes are no mystery.
The Weatherill government has made no formal commitment to the waste dump project, and will not do so before a process of “consultation” with South Australians ends in November.
But few people take the premier’s claim of open-mindedness seriously. Influential figures within the state Labor Party’s dominant right faction are on record as enthusiasts for the waste scheme and big business is cracking the whip.
Weatherill made his views clear when he defied the anti-nuclear thrust of federal Labor policy to set up the royal commission and named the conservative-technocratic retired rear-admiral and former state governor Kevin Scarce as commissioner.
More recently, the government has funded two “citizens’ juries” to hear the testimony of (mainly) pro-nuclear figures and to deliver reports that can be claimed as indicating popular agreement to the nuclear-waste plans……..https://world.einnews.com/article/334731841/OM4SBscz5Dp42697
South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill’s deception about the Nuclear Citizens’ Jury
The Citizens’ Jury has delivered exactly what Jay Weatherill wanted- a summary of the Royal 
Commission recommendations, with enough uncertainty to justify the nuclear lobby’s next step.
(I’m correcting a previous version of this post, here) The South Australian government already rushed through legislation that overturned South Australia’s legislation against spending money on nuclear industry development, (making this retrospective of course – to cover the $millions already spent)
The next step is to overturn the whole Act, or at least those parts of it which prohibit importing a nd storing foreign wastes.
Weatherill is quoted in THE AUSTRALIAN today as saying ”
“they (the Citizens’ Jury) are asking us to also change the legislation to undertake that work”.
That is a lie. The jury was merely repeating what the Nuclear Royal Commission said. The jury kept to their brief – no decisions or recommendations – just regurgitate what the Commission said.
Australian Catholic Aboriginal leaders call for a TREATY NOW
Australia is the only country in the English-speaking world that does not have a Treaty with its First Peoples. The USA, Canada, New Zealand and many other countries have treaties with their First Peoples, recognising their rights and prior occupation of their lands. We can be part of this.
It was made clear during community consultations that many Victorian Aboriginal peoples do not want to be recognised in the Constitution, as it will be more of the same lip service we have endured for decades, like many of the promises made to us in the past that changed nothing.
Catholic Aboriginal leaders in Victoria call for a Treaty http://melbournecatholic.org.au/News/catholic-aboriginal-leaders-in-victoria-call-for-a-treaty 28 June 2016 Sherry Balcombe, Coordinator, Aboriginal Catholic Ministry
In 1986 in Alice Springs Pope St John Paul II gave the most dramatic recognition by the Church in Australia to Aboriginal people. He challenged the Aboriginal people to find their rightful place in the Australian Church. Following that speech, the Aboriginal Catholic people around Australia felt new life and inspiration.
We at the Aboriginal Catholic Ministry Victoria have been greatly supported by the Archdiocese of Melbourne and we acknowledge this support and are grateful for helping us make our voice heard. It takes courage to step across the cultural abyss, so many thanks to the Archdiocese.
I feel that it was a personal challenge to me, and continues to be, to find our rightful place; we are constantly challenged to justify ourselves.
For far too long governments, authorities and the Church have tried to do things for Aboriginal people. Our wish is to do things for ourselves. With your support, encouragement and collaboration we can make this a brighter, prouder and more inclusive chapter in Australia’s shared history.
Although dominant cultures in Australia see us as the victims and problems, we know and see our great warriors: people running organisations, bringing up families and educating the wider communities on the deep, meaningful contributions that we can make to the life of this great country.
We have the chance right now to move forward the right and proper way by working with Aboriginal people towards the common goal of a Treaty. Our people have struggled on the fringes of society for far too long. Continue reading
Nuclear waste – Interim storage containers not necessarily safe
LobbyistsRule, – comment on The Advertiser, 11 July 16
The temperatures inside these casks normally sit at 200 to 300 degrees Celcius – but if the vents of the concrete overjacket get blocked the temperature can rise to 500 degrees Celcius.
These casks have only been around for twenty years – they should start popping all over the USA in a decade or two.
All this information is available from the USA’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission web site for anyone to read. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/citizens-jury-on-sa-nuclear-waste-dump-releases-initial-report/news-story/e76096fa7ec07edcbe18ae0b989683dd
Important questions for the South Australian Nuclear Citizens’ Jury
Dan Monceaux, 11 July 16
1) Jury should ask for access to all submissions made to the Parliamentary Committee currently considering responses to the NFCRC’s Final Report.
2) Jury should realise that future consideration is for a multi-lateral nuclear fuel centre, which could involve enrichment, reprocessing, fuel fabrication etc. Waste storage is an entry point: see “Nuclear Fuel Leasing” in the NFCRC’s Report for details.
3) Jury should ask: What is the defence sector’s interest in the nuclear fuel cycle? If defence wants it, how important is the economic case for further processing? Could these proceed without a commercial proposition?
4) Jury should consider the USA’s Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program and discuss why this was not considered in the NFCRC’s Final Report. it was submitted to the Commission as evidence.
5) Jury should consider the USA’s Radiation Exposure Compensation Act and discuss why this was not considered in the NFCRC’s Final Report. it was submitted to the Commission as evidence.
6) The jury should ask the question: what evidence did the Commission receive and choose NOT to include in its Final Report? Particularly on the topic of safety.
Citizens jury concerned about economics of nuclear waste dump plan
Citizens’ jury questions economics of SA nuclear dump THE AUSTRALIAN JULY 11, 2016 Rebecca Puddy The bid to establish a nuclear waste storage facility in South Australia has suffered a further setback, after an independent “citizens’ jury” raised concerns about the economic viability of the project.
A citizens’ jury of 50 people met over two weekends to discuss the nuclear royal commission report, handing a nine-page summary to Premier Jay Weatherill last night.
But after hearing from experts, the jury questioned the economic underpinnings of the commission’s findings.
“There were varying views between expert witnesses on the economic viability of this project and therefore questions remain relating to the economic modelling by the royal commission report to feel comfortable progressing to further involvement,” the jury report said.>Mr Weatherill accepted the report from the jury, describing it as “commonsense”.
But he confirmed there was extra work to be done on the estimated size of the economic benefit. “They want some more work on the assumptions so they can be clear on what the benefits are and those assumptions are really what is the actual price an overseas country is prepared to pay for storing their waste in our country and that will only be known if we undertake that work,” Mr Weatherill said.
“That will require expenditure and they are asking us to also change the legislation to undertake that work, so it’s a commonsense recommendation and one we will work on.” Another 350 people will meet in October in another citizens’ jury to look at feedback from the statewide consultations………The South Australian Labor government’s examination into the merits of engaging in the nuclear fuel cycle has so far cost the state’s taxpayers $11.8 million.
This is despite Labor’s national platform, updated last year, strongly opposing establishment of nuclear power plants and any stages of the nuclear fuel cycle, other than uranium mining, in Australia. The platform states strong opposition to the importation and storage of nuclear waste from overseas.
In his opening speech to the citizens’ jury, Mr Weatherill said the group was not meant to arrive at a decision but “to actually arrive at a decision about whether the government can make a decision”……..Varying expert views on the economic benefits of storing nuclear waste have already prompted the government to review work already undertaken by its $7.2 million royal commission.
Opposition spokesman Rob Lucas questioned the value of the citizens’ jury to government. “If that is all there is it has been a massive waste of money which hasn’t clarified anything or progressed the debate at all.”
Mr Weatherill has committed to providing a response to the royal commission by the end of the year. The report royal commission’s recommended pursuing a waste dump. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/citizens-jury-questions-economics-of-sa-nuclear-dump/news-story/07e997242e2cb7e71daa0dd45d866a51
Citizens’ jury questions safety concerns surrounding dump proposal
Nuclear royal commission: Citizens’ jury questions safety concerns surrounding dump proposal, ABC News, By Daniel Keane, 10 July 16 A grassroots report into a proposal to build a high-level nuclear waste dump in South Australia has identified safety as a major concern.
The report by a citizens’ jury of 50 randomly selected South Australians also found “significant additional research” is required before residents can make an “informed decision”.
The report, presented to Premier Jay Weatherill on Sunday afternoon, followed four days of intense discussions and meetings with experts both for and against the proposal.
Timeline: SA’s nuclear dump debate Plans for a national nuclear waste dump have been on the agenda for decades, and for much of that time SA’s outback has been touted as a possible site.
“The jurors recognise there are potential economic benefits, but there are also substantial risks to consider,” the report stated. “There is a degree of uncertainty around both the benefits and risks associated with establishing such a facility…….
Nuclear radiation a concern to people, environment Continue reading
Losing faith in Nuclear Citizens’ Jury process – today’s hearings
Unfortunately, despite the genuine hard work of the jury members, it could all be a bit of a waste, or worse. The Nuclear Fuel Chain Royal Commission NFCRC was over months ago. But whaddya know – the NFCRC seems to be well in control of the jury proceedings.
DemocracyCo people are trying hard, but are they the patsy in all this?
Dan Monceau reports on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/1021186047913052/:
At the session I observed yesterday, Lucinda Byers (of the NFCRC) was a major participant in the conversation about ‘Trust’.
Geordan Graetz, a Royal Commission staff member who was first disclosed in the Royal Commission’s final report was hanging around.
I notice today that Ashok Kaniyal, another Royal Commission staff member appears to be present.
The media manager for CARA (the Department of Premier & Cabinet’s new reponse agency) is Jenny Turner, who was previously Senior Communications officer, employed by the Royal Commission.
DPC is “in charge” of the process, but the Commission’s staff are clearly and quite intimately involved in this current Citizens Jury process.
South Australia Nuclear Citizens Jury afternoon session 9 July
In this session, facilitator (probably Emily Jenke from DemocracyCo) was asking the jury to discuss and develop a consensus on the wording of their reports on several topics.
I hope that there will be a transcript of this – (a) because I missed quite a lot and (b) because the to and fro of questions between jurors is hard to follow in an attempted transcript such as I’m doing.
In fact, I learned only some of the discussion on subjects of Education, Community Consent and Trust, and Safety.
Parts that I found particularly significant –
- On Economics – how much investment does the State of South Australia have to put into development of nuclear waste importing facilities? Some jurors felt that there was not enough economic modelling. on education: when will a yes or no answer be acceptable?
- on Trust : it was stressed that this is important because the current South Australian legislation prohibits import and storage of foreign nuclear waste. We need to decide if South Australia, as producer of uranium, has a moral and ethical obligation to take back wastes. Apparently Haydn Manning in a previous hearing has suggested that there is this obligation. However, one juror stated that this was not the finding of the old Ranger Inquiry. International standards state that the society that generates the waste (i.e in nuclear reactors) has that obligation, (not the society that provides the uranium). The Royal Commission Report also states this.
- on Safety – a comprehensive report was given on this, outlining many questions. Here one juror complained that the risks had been emphasised, rather than safety. He referred the jurors back to then evidence given the previous week on radiation risks. At this point my live-stream reception cut out – just as it was getting interesting, seeing that last week’s Citizens’ jury speakers produced a whole lot of trivial nonsense on this topic.
Nuclear Citizens Jury discusses Community Consent
Enice Marsh from the Adnyamathanha Camp Law Mob led off with a clear and passionate statement on the fact that, despite the friendliness and courtesy of the Nuclear Commission’s Jon Bok, their group utterly rejects nuclear waste importing.
This discussion focused mainly on Aboriginal issues. Of course, mainly white people talking. But it is encouraging to note that these jurors showed real concern for the interests of Aboriginal people.
Some interesting discussion on whether the question of importing nuclear waste is an “ethical question or an economic question”
One juror answered firmly –
“If you read the Royal Commission’s report, it’s all about the money”
Nobody disputed that , and the facilitator moved the discussion on quickly.
A juror questioned the lack of information amongst the ordinary public, including the jurors, about radiation. This matter was not followed up.
Proposals were made that there should be no further discussion, until all potential native landowners be fully consulted, before there is any further progress in the State discussion on nuclear. waste importing. It doesn’t look as if that proposition will be taken up. It was knocked on the head by another Aboriginal speaker – Harry?
The group ended up working out a paragraph for their Final Report. – along these lines:
“We have confidence that the best consultation must be what works for the people being consulted. It should not be rushed, and this must be clear from the start.”
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 