Citizens’ Juries can be a valuable guide in nuclear decision-making
The role of Citizens’ Juries in decision-making on nuclear waste importation, Online opinion, By Noel Wauchope 13 May 2016 On May 10th South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill announced the process by which the state will decide whether or not to host a global nuclear waste import industry, as recommended by the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.
The first step will be to set up a “Citizens’ Jury” of 50 participants randomly selected from 25,000 invitees statewide, to be followed later by another one of 350 participants.
I think that Weatherill might have mistaken his terms here, as a Citizens’ Jury, by definition, means a group of 10 to 12 participants. The Weatherill plan sounds more like a “Deliberative Poll”, which involves a much larger group.
A properly constituted Citizens’ Jury can be a valuable process in participatory democracy. The group of 10 or 12 people serves as microcosm of the public. …… The process depends on having the oversight of a neutral but well informed advisory panel. Questions need to be framed in a way that does not risk influencing the response. Transparency is important, and complete audio or video recordings of all jury hearings should be publicly available, although the actual jury room deliberations should be private.
The citizen jury process can be an empowering one for the participants, and, as long as it is perceived to be fair and transparent, can be a valuable democratic option for assessing public opinion. It also has the advantage of being cost-effective.
The “Deliberative Poll” method is potentially another very useful form of participatory democracy. It is a lot more expensive, and more complicated. The biggest disadvantage of the Deliberative Poll method is probably its cost. Wikipedia notes:
“Imagine how much money is needed to pay for the trips, the hotel and the food for each participant, hiring the research crew and moderators, booking a venue, etc. Additional costs can include paying for participants’ compensation so that people that are randomly selected can put aside their duties to attend the events (i.e. hiring someone to milk a participant’s cow and providing child care”
Some critics insist that funding for either of these processes should not come from on single body.
“Multiple sources of funding help to ensure that the jury’s organisers are not seen as having a financial interest in producing a verdict that supports the interests of a single funding body. To maximise the scrutiny they provide, the two or more funders should have somewhat opposing interests regarding the subject likely to be under discussion.”……
In Japan, in 2012, a Deliberative Poll formed the guide to government decision-making. The Japanese government used the Center for Deliberative Democracy’s Deliberative Polling method to both inform participants and allow them to influence policymakers about the public’s will with regard to energy production issues. As a direct result of the deliberative polling process, Japan’s national government pledged to have zero percent dependency on nuclear energy after 2030. (This decision was overturned by a later government).
The South Australian government’s decision to start with a participatory democracy process is a welcome one, provided that it is done fairly and properly. Neither a Citizens Jury nor a Deliberative Poll can be a substitute for a fully democratic process like a referendum, but either could be a valuable contributor to a wider process of decision making. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18230
South Australian govt will decide on nuclear waste import, but let citizens talk about it anyway
Premier Jay Weatherill Thursday, 11 May 2016 Community views critical to our State’s nuclear future Olympic Dam for nuclear waste? BHP does not agree
Have these people read BHP’s Submission to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission?
BHP clearly states that it doesn’t want to have any involvement in storage or disposal of nuclear waste:
“Irrespective of whether storage or disposal is preferred, BHP Billiton considers that either option would be inconsistent with our core business of mining and the production of high quality copper and associated by-products at Olympic Dam.” – http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/app/uploads/2015/11/BHP-Billiton-03-08-2015.pdf
Olympic Dam mooted as nuke dump site The area around BHP Billiton’s Olympic Dam site has been raised in informal discussions within government as a prospective site for a future high-level nuclear waste dump, InDaily can reveal. INDAILY, Tom Richardson, 12 May 15, While a decision on whether to proceed with an international nuclear repository – as strongly recommended by this week’s Scarce Royal Commission final report – won’t be made until November at the earliest, it’s understood the viability of the Stuart Shelf region of the Gawler Craton, much of which is covered by the Olympic Dam indenture agreement, is “a question that’s been asked” in State Government circles.
The discussions also raised the prospect of an approach to Oz Minerals, whose Prominent Hill operation is around 130km northwest of Olympic Dam…….
It’s understood the Rann Government approached BHP in its first term to canvas using Olympic Dam for a low-level state repository, a suggestion the company declined.
It has since maintained that stance, unsurprisingly given the relatively low financial return of such an enterprise, saying in February that it had not been shortlisted for the national waste repository for low and intermediate level waste “and we expect this process to run its course”……http://indaily.com.au/news/2016/05/12/olympic-dam-mooted-as-nuke-dump-site/
Radioactive waste management is a social justice and environmental issue.
Radioactive waste management is a social justice and environmental issue. Traditional Owners living remotely across Australia have repeatedly refused to allow their country to be used as a sacrifice zone.
Any responsible approach needs to start with a commitment to stop the production of more waste and the phase out of the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. We need processes that will transcend election cycles in favour of respect for country and communities, both now and long into the future.
Until then, every attempt to dump the waste ‘out of site out of mind’ on unwilling communities will be met with fierce resistance.
One Adnyamathanha woman Regina McKenzie, who is a direct neighbour to the nominated site, said the community is devastated, “like somebody had rang us up and told us somebody had passed away”. The Australian Conservation Foundation, too, are calling the proposal “disturbingly familiar to past failed federal approaches.”
The nominated site, leased as a pastoral property from the South Australian Government by ex-Liberal Senator Greg Chapman, is located next door to Yappala Station, which was declared an Indigenous Protected Area by the Federal Government in 2014.
There are many thousands of Aboriginal artefacts registered in the area, including an ancient Aboriginal skull fragment. The Adnyamathanha people have been meticulously mapping and registering the storylines and sites. The landscape is stunning, with Hookina Creek on the property framed by the iconic Flinders Ranges. Wilpena Pound is around 30 kilometres away…….. Continue reading
Environment groups slam NSW government attempts to generate interest in uranium trade.
The future is renewable, not radioactive: Environment groups slam NSW government attempts to generate interest in uranium trade.
Environment groups have slammed attempts by the NSW government to talk up the potential for uranium exploration as well as coal seam gas to international investors.
The Sydney Morning Herald reported yesterday that at a conference held in Toronto in March, Department of NSW Trade and Investment spruiked NSW as a ‘greenfields’ opportunity for uranium, citing areas in the central west around Broken Hill and the New England region as possible hotspots.
Beyond Nuclear Initiative coordinator Natalie Wasley said “Minister Roberts is going head first down a radioactive rabbit hole. The uranium industry is outdated and unsafe and it is flat lining economically.”
“When the uranium exploration moratorium was overturned in 2012, environment groups were joined by trade unions and medical organisations, as well as the state ALP and Greens parties to launch the NSW Uranium Free Charter. There has historically been strong opposition to uranium exploration and mining in NSW and this has not waned over time.”
“Attempts to open a uranium mining industry here will be challenged head on.”
Kerry Laws from Uranium Free NSW added: “NSW has the potential to be a leader in renewables, but the government is instead trying to drag the state back into the dirty dark ages of the uranium trade.”
“Minister Roberts and Premier Baird could give some substance to Turnbull’s innovation bandwagon, by exploring and mapping out renewable options, rather than resorting to an industry that both damages our land and creates by-products that remain toxic for 100,000 years.”
“The future is in regional, renewable industries.”
Wind and hydro providing 100% renewable energy to Tasmania
Tasmania completely powered by renewable energy as rainfall boosts hydro dams ABC News 12 May 16, Tasmania is being completely powered by renewable energy for the first time this year, Hydro Tasmania says.
Key points:
- Sustained rainfall fills dams by more than 3 per cent over 10 days
- All diesel generators and gas power stations have been turned off
- Rough weather hampers repairs to Basslink cable
The state has been in crisis for several months with dam levels at record lows after unprecedented dry weather…….
Hydro Tasmania CEO Stephen Davy said the state’s emergency diesel generators had been switched off through the week and the gas fired Tamar Valley Power Station was turned off yesterday.
“The past 10 days have been very positive,” he said.
“We’ve had more rain than predicted and our storages have risen strongly.
“There’s currently enough hydro and wind energy available to meet all Tasmanian demand.
“For the first time in months, our island is being powered solely by renewable energy.”…..http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-12/tasmania-completely-powered-by-renewable-energy/7408148
Nuclear dump site for a culturally and archaeologically significant area!
NASA scientist and European Space Agency dismayed at CSIRO climate research cuts
‘Dismay’: NASA scientist appeals to CSIRO not to cut global climate efforts, The Age, May 12, 2016 Peter Hannam Environment Editor, The Sydney Morning Herald
A top scientist from US space agency NASA has appealed to CSIRO to abandon plans to cut a key monitoring program that it says will undermine Australia and the world’s ability to monitor and predict climate change. Continue reading
Australian Greens solar policy
Greens unveil solar policy http://www.examiner.com.au/story/3904209/greens-unveil-solar-policy/?cs=95 Georgie Burgess
@georgieburgo May 13, 2016 The Australian Greens have released a policy that aims to encourage households to take up battery storage technology by introducing a 50 per cent refundable tax credit to assist with solar costs.
Tasmanian Greens Senator Nick McKim said the policy would support the more than 26,000 Tasmanians that have solar capacity installed, with $54 million to gain.
Under the policy, people would get up to half the cost of their battery storage system covered, up to a maximum of $5000 in the first year of the program.
The program would run for five years and the amount of the credit would taper off to $1,500 by 2021, reflecting the projected decline in battery storage costs.
A grant scheme would also be available for those on low incomes.
It’s expected up to 1.2 million Australian homes could be supported over the five years of the program.
Together, small household systems in Tasmania are generating approximately 81.5 megawatts of power, with more than 12 per cent of households using rooftop solar.
“The Greens battery storage policy will support the 26,529 Tasmanian households that already have solar capacity installed and encourage thousands more to shift to battery storage,” Senator McKim said.
“Tasmanian households could gain over $54 million in support for battery storage.
“Unfortunately, the energy crisis has exposed Tasmania’s vulnerability and our over-reliance on Basslink importing dirty power from the Latrobe Valley.”
Senator McKim said the policy would be a game changer for the state’s energy security and increase Tasmania’s reputation as a centre of renewable energy.
“The Greens are the only party with the courage and vision to propose sustainable solutions for Tasmania’s energy security.”
Earlier this week, Greens energy spokeswoman Rosalie Woodruff said the feed-in tariff decision by the Economic Regulator to pay solar PV owners 6.6c per kilowatt hour “is a slap in the face for solar owners and the installation industry”.
Can citizen’s juries make decision on Australia importing global nuclear wastes?
Citizen’s council to steer SA nuclear waste decision MEREDITH BOOTH THE AUSTRALIAN MAY 11, 2016
A system used to decide “tricky policy issues” such as how South Australians manage unwanted dogs and cats will be set up to decide the state’s nuclear future.
Labor Premier Jay Weatherill said a citizen’s jury of 50, chosen from 25,000 “everyday South Australians’’ in a similar way to how a jury is chosen for a criminal trial, will be formed next month to pose key questions raised by the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission into the state’s further involvement in the nuclear industry.
A second jury of 350 would seek community feedback and report to the government by September, before a decision on a dump is made by November. Including an advertising campaign, the process would cost $1 million, Mr Weatherill said…..
The Premier said it would be impossible to proceed with recommendations, which included expanding uranium mining and considering nuclear power, without strong community support. “This is going nowhere if it is going to be the subject of political controversy,” he said……
“No serious investor will co-operate with us, no international partner will want to be part of entering into what is a long-term, extraordinarily expensive set of investments if they don’t think the community is going to be able to deliver on them.
“This is a test of our democracy. Can we have a mature and reasoned debate about this issue and come up with a wise judgment,“ he said.
The government has recently used citizen juries on issues of dog and cat management and cycling laws, saying it develops independent views not dominated by lobbyists and activists.
But the nuclear question was “clearly a very significant decision to entrust to this process,’’ said University of Adelaide political analyst Clement Macintyre.
“It means that the decision is arms’ length from the government, and potentially politically safer for them,’’ he said.
Mr Weatherill’s openness to a nuclear dump has clashed with Labor’s national platform, which is strongly opposed to the importation and storage of nuclear waste. However, he said political consensus had to be achieved at state level before taking the question nationally. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/citizens-council-to-steer-sa-nuclear-waste-decision/news-story/20e35875865926c8d1746ed9a55174b5
Long haul for South Australia nuclear waste dump project, and serious risks
Australians face big decision on nuclear waste dump, news.com.au MAY 10, 2016 ….. ” it’s not going to be an overnight fix for the state’s budget problems. A permanent facility would take 28 years to build, and this construction could only start once local residents were on board. The commissioner has suggested it could take 10 years to get this approval.
Even if an interim facility was built to take used fuel while the permanent version was under construction, this would still only be operational 11 years after a decision on the project was made.
SAFETY ASPECTS
Used nuclear fuel, stored as a solid ceramic in metal cladding, generates heat and is highly radioactive and dangerous.
According to the commission, radiation levels reduce quickly during the first 30 to 50 years of storage and the most radioactive elements decay within 500 years. But less radioactive elements in nuclear fuel do require storage and isolation for at least 100,000 years.
The commission noted that the most serious consequences of disturbing nuclear fuel were linked to potential exposure to radiation.
And certainly nothing focuses the mind like considering the wasteland of Chernobylor Fukushima………
the difficulty of disposing of nuclear waste, even low-level waste, which needs be stored for up to a few hundred years, have been illustrated in the US and France.
America’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) was compromised when a drum of radioactive waste burst open in the underground facility. Most disturbingly, the rupture was blamed on someone putting the wrong type of kitty litter in the drum, possibly due to a typo in a policy manual.
A WAR BEGINS
Conservationists have accused the commissioner of downplaying the risks of nuclear storage and have threatened to ramp up their campaign against the dump.
“We’ll be increasing our profile, our presence and our concerns,” Australian Conservation Foundation spokesman Dave Sweeney told AAP……..
Invitations will be sent this week to 25,000 people seeking an expression of interest in being part of a 400-person jury that will consider the state’s approach…….
Treasurer Scott Morrison said the Federal Government would work constructively with SA to address any issues arising out of the Royal Commission…….
Cameco uranium plan faces rocky road
https://nuclearfree.wordpress.com/media/ , 11 May 16 Traditional Owners from the regions around the proposed Yeelirrie and Kintyre uranium operations in WA have today sent Cameco shareholders and stakeholders a clear message of opposition to any mining plans. The groups have released a joint statement to coincide with Cameco’s Annual General Meeting being held in Saskatoon, Canada.
Both communities have a long history of opposition to uranium mining plans at Yeelirrie and Kintyre, dating back to early uranium exploration in WA during the 1980’s. Both communities have also attracted the support of environment, social justice, union and health organisations and the state Labor and state and federal Greens parties in their fight against uranium mining.
“You can’t reverse what the old people have said before. We’re going to stop it” said Desmond Taylor, Karlamilyi Traditional Owner. “This is my spiritual birthplace, my dreaming place. Warturarra (the proposed Kintyre mine site) became my spiritual home; the bush food there became my totem. To mine there would take away my spirit and the totem, it will destroy the living things around it, that place would become empty.”
The joint statement is going to the Cameco Board, shareholders and major Canadian investors. It conveys the depth of the contest that company will face should it seek to advance uranium mining.
“Our country is special to us” said Kado Muir, a Yeelirrie Traditional Owner and Senate candidate for the National Party. “I’m not anti-mining I am speaking as a Traditional Owner communicating our view that Cameco and uranium mining are not welcome on our country. Uranium is different to other mining, because the risks remain for thousands of years. It is our responsibility to look after the land for future generations. We will continue to challenge the proposal to mine uranium at Yeelirrie.”
Members of the Parnngurr and Martu community will be walking from through the Karlamilyi National Park to the proposed uranium mine at Kintyre from the 4th – 12th of June in protest to Cameco and Mitsubishi’s uranium mine plans. See community interviews here.
The Walkatjurra Rangers and Yeelirrie Traditional Owners will also be walking in protest to the Yeelirrie uranium mine from the 7th of August – 7th September. This will be the sixth annual walk against uranium mining in the region. See community interviews here.
#NuclearCommissionSAust bizarre attack on renewable energy
In its final report, the commission draws from the usual nuclear play-book on renewables: that wind and solar can’t do the job, that other renewable energy technologies are untested, and that renewables will require expensive and additional back-up power.
So far, South Australia has got to 50 per cent wind and solar without the need for any additional back-up power. Indeed, there is still surplus capacity.
Royal Commission wants rules changed on nuclear power in 
Australia http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/royal-commission-wants-rules-changed-on-nuclear-power-in-australia-28210 By Giles Parkinson on 10 May 2016 The Royal Commission on the Nuclear Fuel Cycle has concluded that nuclear power generation is not a commercially viable option for Australia, and won’t be until the 2030s – if at all, but it still wants governments to repeal laws that ban nuclear generation.
The main findings of the Royal Commission centred around the creation of a nuclear waste dump, despite widespread criticism of the move. That recommendation will be reviewed by the South Australia government over the course of the year.
But on the same day that the last coal-fired power generator in the state was closed down, the commission has also argued the case for nuclear, saying it “might” be needed post 2030.
The Royal Commission seems to accept that nuclear power is not just too expensive, but too big to fit into the South Australia market, and it would be too risky for the state to build “new generation” technology, such as the “generation IV” reactors often promoted in nuclear circles.
Yet, further into the report, it expresses support for small modular reactors, despite the fact that this technology will likely be even more expensive, due to reduced economies of scale, and forms part of the “new generation” technologies because the first of its kind are not likely to appear within the next decade.
The commission gives some bizarre interpretations in the state of the market, Continue reading
Paragraphs in the Royal Commission report that deserve scrutiny
Michelle Drummond, South Australia, 11 May 16 After reading the summary of the report I wanted to highlight a couple of points that I see as being important, and worth consideration. Firstly it seems obvious to me that the dump is actually the wedge to introduce the rest of the Nuclear industry into Australia.
It is interesting that the opening statement highlights that being involved in Nuclear activities brings environmental, social, financial and safety risks.
In the next paragraph they talk about the 120 year life span of the project and ignore that there is still another 99,880 years to maintain the safety of the dump.
In paragraph 3 it is firmly stated there needs to be agreement by the South Australian Community (Citizens Jury now offered as the method for reaching agreement I have found that it is open to abuse, unless everyone is well informed across the topic.)
Paragraph 6 states that the government needs to pursue simplification of both state and federal legislation in regards to uranium mining.
Paragraph 8 is all about expanding mining, and exploration and removing barriers. At the end of this paragraph it was pleasing to see the idea that mining companies should be held financially responsible for remediation and decommission.
Paragraph 11 discusses the removal of legislation so that Australia could reprocess waste as well as storing it.
Paragraph 13 states that Nuclear power should not be discounted based on safety.
New report attacking environmental groups must be resisted
Green groups are united in calling for the PM and Minister Hunt to reject the report and a number of its recommendations. Any administrative changes to the Register of Environmental Organisations done before the federal election would confirm that the Inquiry was all about politics and not about good management of environmental groups.
Malcolm Turnbull must reject anti-democratic attack on environmental groups, Independent Australia, Cam Walker 9 May 2016, Will Malcolm Turnbull follow Tony Abbott’s witch-hunt on environmental groups, which will see them lose charitable status for “civil disobedience”?
THE DISPROPORTIONATE influence of the fossil fuel and mining sectors over federal government policy is both well documented and long standing.
With the rise of the far right neo-liberal Abbott Government, the agenda of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) also became more influential after several years of being on the “outer” while the ALP was in power.
The IPA is well known for arguing against the environment movement and has campaigned against specific environmental policies like thecarbon tax.
Being fundamentally opposed to mainstream scientific positions on climate change and the work of the environment movement, the IPA has argued for the government to reconsider all funding which is provided to the environment movement.
This convergence of views – conservative MPs, right wing think tanks and influence by the fossil fuel sector – has led to a sustained attack on the environment movement in recent years.
One key aspect of this attack has been the House of Representatives Inquiry into the Register of Environmental Organisations. After narrative in the media and, we have to assume, lobbying by many in the mining and fossil fuel sectors, Minister for the Enviroment Greg Hunt initiated the Inquiry into the tax status of green groups. It was widely seen as being politically motivated. Continue reading
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 